↓ Skip to main content

Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine: Semantic Considerations for an Evolving Paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine: Semantic Considerations for an Evolving Paradigm
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2014.00057
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ravi Katari, Andrea Peloso, Giuseppe Orlando

Abstract

Tissue engineering (TE) and regenerative medicine (RM) are rapidly evolving fields that are often obscured by a dense cloud of hype and commercialization potential. We find, in the literature and general commentary, that several of the associated terms are casually referenced in varying contexts that ultimately result in the blurring of the distinguishing boundaries which define them. "TE" and "RM" are often used interchangeably, though some experts vehemently argue that they, in fact, represent different conceptual entities. Nevertheless, contemporary scientists have a general idea of the experiments and milestones that can be classified within either or both categories. Given the groundbreaking achievements reported within the past decade and consequent watershed potential of this field, we feel that it would be useful to properly contextualize these terms semantically and historically. In this concept paper, we explore the various definitions proposed in the literature and emphasize that ambiguous terminology can lead to misplaced apprehension. We assert that the central motifs of both concepts have existed within the surgical sciences long before their appearance as terms in the scientific literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 156 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 46 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 13%
Engineering 15 9%
Chemistry 8 5%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 54 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2016.
All research outputs
#5,495,924
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#746
of 6,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,645
of 352,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#11
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,524 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.