Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42756243›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026

What´s in a name: the issue with regulatory definitions.

Clara Rubinstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Clara RubinsteinGraduate Certificate on Risk Analysis, School of Agronomy, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The title refers to a line from William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet to suggest that names are unimportant. While this may hold true in the context of human equality, clear terminology and definitions are essential for legal and regulatory purposes. Clear, unambiguous definitions reduce discretionary interpretations, make regulatory requirements more predictable and transparent, and facilitate compliance. The rise of gene-editing techniques and the renewed interest in agricultural biologicals call for a revision of the criteria used to define a GMO, particularly for microorganisms.

Indexed as

genome editingGM microorganismsGMOsregulatory criteriaregulatory definitions

Identifiers

PMID42756243
PMCPMC13582407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.