Highlights on Advancing Frontiers in Tissue Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of tissue engineering continues to advance, sometimes in exponential leaps forward, but also sometimes at a rate that does not fulfill the promise that the field imagined a few decades ago. This review is in part a catalog of success in an effort to inform the process of innovation. Tissue engineering has recruited new technologies and developed new methods for engineering tissue constructs that can be used to mitigate or model disease states for study. Key to this antecedent statement is that the scientific effort must be anchored in the needs of a disease state and be working toward a functional product in regenerative medicine. It is this focus on the wildly important ideas coupled with partnered research efforts within both academia and industry that have shown most translational potential. The field continues to thrive and among the most important recent developments are the use of three-dimensional bioprinting, organ-on-a-chip, and induced pluripotent stem cell technologies that warrant special attention. Developments in the aforementioned areas as well as future directions are highlighted in this article. Although several early efforts have not come to fruition, there are good examples of commercial profitability that merit continued investment in tissue engineering. Impact statement Tissue engineering led to the development of new methods for regenerative medicine and disease models. Among the most important recent developments in tissue engineering are the use of three-dimensional bioprinting, organ-on-a-chip, and induced pluripotent stem cell technologies. These technologies and an understanding of them will have impact on the success of tissue engineering and its translation to regenerative medicine. Continued investment in tissue engineering will yield products and therapeutics, with both commercial importance and simultaneous disease mitigation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.015 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".