ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Artificial intelligence in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: from algorithmic capability to intelligent integration.
Review 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated throughout the tissue engineering and regenerative medicine (TERM) pipeline, from literature synthesis, experimental design, and automation to image analysis, biological modeling, and knowledge dissemination. However, TERM differs fundamentally from many domains where AI has succeeded. Biological heterogeneity, limited datasets, evolving protocols, sparse ground truth, and high translational stakes constrain the development and deployment of AI-driven approaches. Consequently, AI should be seen as a collection of purpose-specific tools whose suitability, risks, and validation requirements depend on the context. This review examines how AI can be intelligently integrated across the TERM workflow, emphasizing how intended purpose, biological reality, and translational constraints shape technology selection. We examine AI's use as a framework for knowledge extraction, experimental planning, decision support, experimental execution, data generation, interpretation, and scientific communication. Key challenges include limited generalizability, uncertainty, validation, accountability, and the risk of confusing predictive performance with biological or mechanistic insight. We argue that many important gaps in AI-enabled TERM are not algorithmic but conceptual, methodological, and educational. Future progress will depend on purpose-aware AI literacy, uncertainty-aware modeling, validation strategies, human-in-the-loop workflows, and establishing community standards for transparency, reproducibility, and translation. Ultimately, AI should not be a shortcut around biological complexity, but a means of engaging with that complexity more explicitly and responsibly. Across the TERM pipeline, AI is best viewed as an amplifier of biological evidence and scientific reasoning rather than a substitute, with its greatest impact arising from intelligent integration into scientific practice rather than increasingly intelligent algorithms alone.
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.