MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060252860 · doi:10.1089/ten.2005.11.341

<i>Review: In Vitro, in Vivo, in Silico:</i> Computational Systems in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

2005· review· en· W2060252860 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTissue Engineering · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegenerative medicineKey (lock)Tissue engineeringComputer scienceFunction (biology)Systems biologyIn silicoData scienceSystems engineeringComputational biologySoftware engineeringEngineeringBiologyStem cellBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of computational systems in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine is paralleling the rapid rise of new technology. Developments in software and hardware have allowed access to the huge data streams that are now available. The Human Genome Project led the way and opened many avenues for other branches of science and biology with extensive but contained databanks. The availability of vast amounts of data means nothing without the ability to integrate the information into a useful form. Tissue engineering has always been a practical science in which function and utility are key objectives. This review delineates key areas of this rapidly ascending branch of science and illustrates examples central to the successful integration of computational methods.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.302 · 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