Bringing regenerative medicines to the clinic: the future for regulation and reimbursement.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant investments in regenerative medicine necessitate discussion to align evidentiary requirements and decision-making considerations from regulatory, health system payer and developer perspectives. Only with coordinated efforts will the potential of regenerative medicine be realized. We report on discussions from two workshops sponsored by NICE, University of Alberta, Cell Therapy Catapult and Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. We discuss methods to support the assessment of value for regenerative medicine products and services and the synergies that exist between market authorization and reimbursement regulations and practices. We discuss the convergence in novel adaptive licensing practices that may promote the development and adoption of novel therapeutics that meet the needs of healthcare payers.
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 | 0.086 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.037 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".