ReviewInnovation (Cambridge (Mass.))2024
Toward a nomenclature consensus for diverse intelligent systems: Call for collaboration.
Review in Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethics and Regulation of Human Brain Organoid Research: Recommendations from the Asia Pacific Neuroethics Working Group.Asian bioethics review · 2026Article
- Large language models in clinical psychiatry: Applications and optimization strategies.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
- Article
- Harnessing Intelligence from Brain Cells In Vitro.The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry · 2025Review
- Starting a synthetic biological intelligence lab from scratch.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Dynamic Network Plasticity and Sample Efficiency in Biological Neural Cultures: A Comparative Study with Deep Reinforcement Learning.Cyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Article
- Editorial: Intersection between the biological and digital: synthetic biological intelligence and organoid intelligence.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disagreements about language use are common both between and within fields. Where interests require multidisciplinary collaboration or the field of research has the potential to impact society at large, it becomes critical to minimize these disagreements where possible. The development of diverse intelligent systems, regardless of the substrate (e.g., silicon vs. biology), is a case where both conditions are met. Significant advancements have occurred in the development of technology progressing toward these diverse intelligence systems. Whether progress is silicon based, such as the use of large language models, or through synthetic biology methods, such as the development of organoids, a clear need for a community-based approach to seeking consensus on nomenclature is now vital. Here, we welcome collaboration from the wider scientific community, proposing a pathway forward to achieving this intention, highlighting key terms and fields of relevance, and suggesting potential consensus-making methods to be applied.
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.