ReviewRegenerative biomaterials2018
Hesitant steps from the artificial skin to organ regeneration.
Review in Regenerative biomaterials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Skin Relevant Biomaterials from Wound Healing, Medical Aesthetics, Flexible Electronics to Artificial Intelligence and Beyond.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Review
- Outcomes of Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix for Soft Tissue Reconstruction of the Hand and Extremities.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- [Clinical efficacy of local injection of platelet-rich plasma combined with double-layer artificial dermis in treating wounds with exposed tendon on extremity].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2023Observational
- 3D bioprinting and RigeneraFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Keratinocyte sheets prepared with temperature-responsive dishes show enhanced survival afterRegenerative therapy · 2019Article
- Soft-Nanoparticle Functionalization of Natural Hydrogels for Tissue Engineering Applications.Advanced healthcare materials · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
This is a historical account of the steps, both serendipitous and rational, that led my group of students and colleagues at MIT and Harvard Medical School to discover induced organ regeneration. Our research led to methods for growing back in adult mammals three heavily injured organs, skin, peripheral nerves and the conjunctiva. We conclude that regeneration in adults is induced by a modification of normal wound healing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.