MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047792802 · doi:10.1002/term.20

A proposed definition of regenerative medicine

2007· article· en· W2047792802 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkCentre for Global Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRegenerative medicineVariety (cybernetics)Field (mathematics)Engineering ethicsFunction (biology)Management scienceSubject (documents)Work (physics)Computer scienceData scienceEngineeringBiologyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsWorld Wide WebStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There exists a lack of consensus regarding a clear and precise definition of regenerative medicine. We suggest here a definition developed by the authors with input from researchers in the various contributing disciplines. This definition emphasizes the interdisciplinarity of the field, its goal of restoring impaired function, and the wide variety of technologies that can contribute to achieving this goal. By highlighting the lack of agreement regarding a definition of regenerative medicine, and by proposing our own definition, we hope to stimulate discussion on the subject within the field and to encourage the regenerative medicine community to work together to develop a consensus definition. We believe that a clear definition of regenerative medicine could help to unify the field and is essential to facilitate understanding among policy makers, funding agencies and the general public, as well as individuals from scientific and medical disciplines.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it