Οι έξυπνοι μαθαίνουν από όλα και από όλους, οι μέτριοι από τις εμπειρίες τους – Σωκράτης Smart people learn from everything and everyone, average ones from experience … – Socrates (Greek Philosopher; 469 BC – 399 BC)
Regenerative medicine today
The portfolio of increasingly mature regenerative biotechnologies continues to grow and diversify [ 1 , 2 ]. Across therapeutic classes and clinical indications, innovative regenerative therapies offer disruptive approaches that aspire to restore the form and function of a failing organ and rebuild recipient’s health [ 3 ]. Immersing into diverse healthcare sectors, the expanded regenerative toolbox aims to enrich contemporary treatment options beyond the symptom mitigation scope of more traditional therapies. Notably, regenerative approaches aim to offer disease-modifying or even curative options for notoriously recalcitrant conditions and otherwise incurable maladies [ 4 ]. Currently, emerging regenerative care solutions touch a record number of human lives around the globe through regimented clinical trials and real-world practices, projecting past the originally stated goals of structural and functional repair to achieve quality-of-life objectives [ 5–13 ]. With this evolving backdrop, regulatory approvals have been sought more frequently across clinical specialties. These efforts are exemplified by practice-transformative regenerative immunotherapies introduced for the management of B-cell lymphomas, B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia, and multiple myeloma in haemato-oncology; for addressing ocular burn-induced limbal stem cell deficiency in ophthalmology; or for complex fistula repair and Crohn’s disease treatment in gastroenterology and surgery [ 14–16 ]. Cartilage‐derived chondrocytes for cartilage repair, and mesenchymal stem cells [ 17 ] in graft‐versus‐host disease, are also now registered therapies [ 6 , 7 , 18 ]. However, the incomplete understanding of the nature and/or cause of treated disease entities, amplified by only a partial characterization of applied biotherapies, have hindered a broader uptake in practice, jeopardized notably by mixed, and often unpredictable clinical outcomes [ 19–21 ]. Accordingly, there is a pressing need to enhance the precision, efficiency, and effectiveness of regenerative approaches to reach standards realized with more conventional armamentaria in human medicine. Notable examples include the continuous need for: (i) optimized cell biotherapeutics endowed with predictable regenerative potency and functionality; (ii) improved tissue engineered scaffolds, custom-designed, and offering desirable tissue interaction properties for enhanced outcome; (iii) targeted selection of suitable patient populations most likely to favorably respond to a regenerative regimen; (iv) comprehensive surveillance of recipient responses following a regenerative intervention in order to maximize longitudinal follow-up; and (v) through iterative considerations, realizing accelerated cycles of next-generation discovery and development that leverage the growing clinical experience enabling in turn expedited advances and adding value to overcome diverse challenges that span the regenerative science and practice continuum.
Current challenges
Case in point, early regenerative protocols and pioneering clinical development plans did not discern the regenerative aptitude of delivered biotherapeutics and did not necessarily consider distinct underlying disease substrates presenting distinctive, often idiosyncratic therapeutic requirements [ 22 , 23 ]. Moreover, the recognized shortcomings in delivery strategies and the commonly imprecise best candidate identification have confined the regenerative care pathways to an empirical paradigm [ 24–26 ]. Regenerative practice has in fact largely relied on experience-guided algorithms based on inference from trial-and-error iterations rather than on the fidelity of evidence-based and guideline-directed, reliable care pathways. In this context, ongoing optimizing endeavors have been multi-pronged, ranging from deciphering the regeneration-permissive intimacy of disease substrates to decoding the mode of regenerative action, and ultimately delineating clinical predictors and biomarkers of therapeutic response [ 27–29 ]. Despite ongoing advances, translation of regenerative science into standardized clinical applications with dedicated and validated care pathways continues to be impeded by mixed results across specialties, including in gastroenterology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, or dermatology attributed in part to differences ensuing from the selection of patient candidates in the absence of definitive clinical guidelines, non-standardized regenerative material sourcing, variable delivery strategies, and non-harmonized outcome measures [ 30–33 ] Data science and bioinformatics have ushered a next phase in the evolution of the field attempting to overcome traditional constraints. Indeed, progress in data mining and information engineering — exemplified by multiomics-based dissection of disease substrates, biotherapeutic profiles, and repair links — have offered the opportunity for more advanced solutions [ 34 ]. This includes the launch of fit-for-purpose biotherapies, fine-tuned delivery options, or informed selection of recipient candidates [ 35–37 ]. As such, regenerative medicine continues to benefit from the prospect of integrating predictive measures, adding value to the reliability of the discipline and its impact on contemporary clinical care [ 38 ]. Markedly, regenerative medicine is increasingly recognized not only as a traditionally reactive healthcare option but rather as one presenting a proactive potential able to bring benefit early, even at a pre-clinical disease stage [ 39 ]. Ultimately, successful implementation and seamless integration of regenerative choices into mainstream healthcare systems requires ensuring validity (i.e., safety and efficacy) and utility (i.e., sustained benefit over standard of care) of introduced curative therapies while achieving equitable access and sustainable adoption for the broad benefit of patients and populations [ 40 ].
The era of machine learning and deep learning
The wealth of ‘big data’ sets, the progress with data analytics, and the increased fluency and applicability of sophisticated informatic languages have collectively offered an unprecedented opportunity to harness the expanding artificial intelligence technologies and develop modern platforms capable of augmenting the processes of discovery, translation, and application across the regenerative science and medicine spectrum. Artificial intelligence, an umbrella term for software that aspires to mimic and/or augment human cognition, encompasses the domains of ‘machine learning’ and ‘deep learning’ with both offering unique and pertinent attributes [ 41 ]. Specifically, machine learning relies on fitting predictive models, i.e., algorithms, with recognized value in dealing with complex and large datasets to empower classification, regression, and/or clustering of high-dimensional inputs [ 42 ]. Machine learning is readily applicable across the entirety of the innovation pipeline. Case in point, unsupervised machine learning algorithms are a cornerstone of omics analysis, supporting an unbiased assessment of distinct disease states [ 43 ] even when preceding overt disease manifestation in efforts that explore and exploit disease risk signatures [ 44 ]. Machine learning, in unison with dimensional reduction, can help distill intricate and multiparametric readouts, allowing identification of distinct (e.g., patient) cohorts correlating with discrete (pre)clinical endpoints and/or patterns [ 45–47 ]. Capable of extracting features from raw data and processing them to offer an output to be used sequentially for higher-order analysis, deep learning relies on neural network architectures comprised of interconnected ‘neurons’ performing a function on an input and providing a discerning output [ 42 ]. Deep learning applications in medicine are diverse, spanning from computer vision, natural language processing, and reinforcement learning with recognized value for advanced imaging, electronic health record utilization, and robotic interventions, respectively [ 48 ]. Deep learning has been used for high throughout drug candidate screening [ 49 ], predicting therapeutic response [ 50 , 51 ], imaging-based diagnostics [ 52 ], or in aiding with triaging and clinical decision support [ 53 ]. Indeed, the integration of artificial intelligence methodology in regenerative medicine could significantly impact the next iteration of the discovery science to clinical application spectrum [ 54 ].
AI empowered regenerative medicine
Use of artificial intelligence domains is expected to enhance the technological, translational, and clinical readiness of regenerative medicine approaches [ 55 ]. Case in point, artificial intelligence presents broad utility in the discovery and development of new biotherapeutics. Moreover, it facilitates advanced at-scale manufacturing [ 56 ]. Systems interrogation has enabled identifying stem cell signatures associated with a boosted regenerative outcome in the setting of organotypic considerations [ 57 ]. Integration of these approaches with deep learning-based high-throughput morphometric analysis could foster an iterative refinement of the biotherapeutic discovery-development-diffusion cycle [ 58 ]. In fact, high-throughput ‘omics technologies are a proven exemplar that has aided in the dissection of regenerative signals produced by reparative stem cell populations, facilitating, in turn, to gain insight into means that would streamline cell-free alternatives reduced to the essence of the required and sufficient regenerative signaling information. Artificial intelligence application can aid in genome annotation, gene and protein identification, prediction of binding locations and protein–protein interactions. Multidimensional data processing and integration helps the charting of molecular expression profiles needed for classification of disease status and prediction of therapeutic impact [ 59–63 ]. Unsupervised machine learning of protein expression patterns following dimensionality reduction has documented, for example, the rescue of the infarcted myocardial proteome returning toward a pre-infarcted state following regenerative therapy intervention [ 59 ]. Artificial intelligence can further foster clinical development programs of biotherapies through aided cell function monitoring to automate interpretation of readouts [ 64 ] informing fit-for-purpose therapy refinement [ 59 ]. For example, a deep learning model trained on individual preclinical or clinical trial datasets leveraging mesenchymal stromal cells for cartilage repair was able to identify factors associated with targeted repair and to offer the opportunity for therapeutic refining [ 65 ].
AIenhanced manufacturing of regenerative biotherapeutics
In conjunction with the discovery-development axis, integration of artificial intelligence into the manufacturing know-how is particularly valuable in ensuring quality control and assuring scalability, prerequisites in the clinical-grade manufacturing workflows. For example, machine learning models can be fed process parameters from bioreactors to enable identification of predictive variables critical for development, optimization, and upscaling of complex biomanufacturing processes and procedures [ 66 , 67 ]. Informed manufacturing practices may help target the underlying drivers of heterogeneity that hinder translation during scale-up [ 66 , 68 ]. Case in point, translation of morphometric profiling empowered by deep learning trained on microscopic images can automate manufacturing. Namely, a high-speed laser coupled with deep learning enables high-throughput cell purification, facilitating the maintenance of high-quality pluripotent stem cell lines free from spontaneously differentiating progeny [ 69 ]. Subsequently, models trained on tracking differentiation and manufacturing enable automated detection of the most desirable cell populations, ready for on-demand applications [ 70 ]. Beyond stem cells, artificial intelligence can help guide the development of optimal matrices such as those based on hydrogels and used in tissue engineering and hybrid regenerative products [ 71 ]. Collectively, incorporation of artificial intelligence in advanced manufacturing processes can reduce technical requirements and help close the readiness gap [ 72 ] to promote a mass customized outlook for personalized regenerative care [ 73 ]. Yet, leveraging artificial intelligence for regenerative applications is still in its infancy [ 71 ]. Thus, the responsible and ethical use of artificial intelligence will require interdisciplinary collaboration, ethical oversight and review, and consistent transparency [ 74–77 ].
AI in clinical assessment of regenerative therapies
Artificial Intelligence informs the translation of regenerative technologies, enhancing clinical assessment of regenerative therapy outcomes. For instance, artificial intelligence helps to identify prospective imaging biomarkers [ 78 ]. Synergized with large regenerative medicine trials, these efforts have identified imaging-based biomarkers associated with benefit from cell therapy [ 5 , 38 ] helping to map useful biomarker panels that stratify patients most likely to respond to a regenerative treatment option [ 79 ]. At macro level, clinical trial design may be augmented with artificial intelligence approaches which take advantage of available real-world datasets to improve trial designs by helping reduce bias, increase diversity, and guide therapeutic indications and candidate selection [ 80 ]. Following therapy delivery, machine learning may also help track therapeutic response. Hence, artificial intelligence platforms are poised to help transform regenerative science and medicine, augmenting, and accelerating biotherapeutic development, informing targeted delivery, and refining outcome monitoring for the express purpose of extending healthspan for patients and populations.
Future perspective
In the context of steady longevity gains, the healthspan-lifespan gap is widening worldwide, underpinned by a rise in the burden of chronic noncommunicable diseases, a global phenomenon [ 81 , 82 ]. Regenerative medicine is anticipated to contribute to modern strategies rolled out to compress the healthspan gap that undermines healthy living [ 81 ]. In this regard, artificial intelligence holds promise in facilitating the advancements across regenerative science and medicine specialties to narrow the widening healthspan-lifespan gap and contribute to a healthy longevity horizon [ 82 ]. Notwithstanding, a sustainable and equitable regenerative care outlook requires ethical and transparent deployment of artificial intelligence-driven prediction models following careful consideration of challenges and pitfalls by multi-national public and private stakeholders, and demonstrable integrity and reproducibility through data, model and code sharing. Several potential pitfalls, including algorithmic bias, may be introduced during the training process [ 83 ]. Indeed, artificial intelligence forecasts are highly dependent on the accurate and high-quality data input [ 84 ]. Overfitting of the training data may result in models that perform well during training, but are not generalizable in real-world clinical and societal applications [ 85 ]. This is of particular relevance for minorities and groups traditionally underrepresented in biomedical studies, including the elderly, as training data of sufficient volume or quality may be missing in these populations [ 86 ]. In this context, the application of algorithms must be conscientiously applied to prevent bias and treatment inequities. These emerging points of vulnerability require rigorous collection of high-quality training data that are representative of demographics, including vulnerable populations; in parallel, regular performance assessment of models is required [ 83 ]. It is equally important to prevent unauthorized scraping of deposited data sets, thus respecting data frontiers in line with patient consent and privacy. Leveraging open access data sharing can help expand available training data sources. However, differences in analysis pipelines may add heterogeneity in information gleaned from previously analyzed datasets [ 87 ]. In line with the importance of high-quality information-rich data, accurate models require cleanly annotated training datasets with a rigorously defined ground truth to enable accurate learning [ 88 ]. Deep learning models are attractive as they allow abstraction of relevant features of importance; however, these ‘black box’ models are obscure and have limited interpretability, which may hinder applicability in clinical decision-making in part attributed to challenges with accountability and undetected bias [ 89 ]. Thus, translatability into the clinic across healthcare systems may be best achieved by leveraging the simplest model to reach the desired outcome. In addition, the use of artificial intelligence models will require access to vast amounts of private personal and health information which poses data security concerns due to the risk of breaches and inappropriate use [ 83 ]. Caution is necessary as large language models may influence medical knowledge, with risk for misuse and important downstream ramifications [ 84 ]. Artificial intelligence is being gradually embraced across regenerative medicine pipelines with the potential to further propel emerging biotherapeutics toward clinical service-line integration. Assuring inclusive and distributed governance will be paramount at the age of augmented intelligence models capable of reasoning as artificial intelligence powers regenerative medicine into the predictive realm.
Acknowledgments
The authors recognize the Marriott Family Foundation for invaluable support in advancing the principles and practices of regenerative medicine. Andre Terzic is a Mayo Clinic Distinguished Investigator.
Article highlights
Regenerative Medicine Today and Current Challenges
The regenerative medicine armamentarium continues to grow. Regenerative therapies touch a record number of lives. Incomplete understanding of the nature and/or cause of treated disease entities and partial characterization of biotherapies have resulted in mixed, often unpredictable clinical outcomes, hindering a broader uptake. Data science and bioinformatics usher a next phase in the evolution of the field, helping to overcome recognized constraints.
Machine Learning and Deep Learning
Artificial intelligence encompasses the domains of machine learning and deep learning with attributes pertinent in addressing uncertainties in the precision, efficiency, and effectiveness of regenerative pipelines. Machine learning relies on fitting predictive models to empower classification, regression, and/or clustering of high-dimensional inputs. Deep learning relies on neural network architectures capable of extracting features from raw data and processing them to offer an output to be used sequentially for higher-order analysis.
AI Empowered Regenerative Medicine
Use of artificial intelligence domains is expected to enhance the technological, translational, and clinical readiness of regenerative medicine approaches. Artificial intelligence-augmented omics analysis can help refine biotherapy development. Integration of artificial intelligence into the manufacturing know-how is particularly valuable in ensuring quality control and assuring scalability. Machine learning models can be fed process parameters from bioreactors to enable identification of predictive variables critical for development, optimization, and upscaling of complex biomanufacturing processes and procedures. Deep learning trained for morphometric profiling can automate manufacturing ensuring quality and scalability. Collectively, incorporation of artificial intelligence in advanced manufacturing processes can reduce technical requirements and help close the readiness gap.
AI in Assessment of Regenerative Therapies
Artificial Intelligence informs the translation of regenerative technologies, enhancing clinical assessment of regenerative therapy outcomes. Clinical trial design may be augmented with artificial intelligence approaches which take advantage of available real-world datasets to improve trial designs by helping reduce bias, increase diversity, and guide therapeutic indications and candidate selection.
Future Perspective
Artificial intelligence holds promise in facilitating the advancements across regenerative science and medicine specialties. As artificial intelligence is increasingly applied, several potential pitfalls need to be addressed including algorithmic bias, overfitting of the training data, and data security. Artificial intelligence is gradually embraced across regenerative medicine pipelines with the potential to propel emerging biotherapeutics toward clinical service-line integration.
Author contributions
Concept and design: Armin Garmany & Andre Terzic
Manuscript writing and approval: Armin Garmany & Andre Terzic
Administrative support and supervision: Andre Terzic
Andre Terzicisa member of the Regenerative Medicine Editorial Board. They were not involved in any editorial decisions related to the publication of this article, and all author details were blinded to the article’s peer reviewers as per the journal’s double-anonymized peer review policy.
Disclosure statement
Andre Terzic is a co-inventor on regenerative sciences related intellectual property disclosed to Mayo Clinic. Mayo Clinic and Andre Terzic have interests in Rion LLC. The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as either of interest (•) or of considerable interest (••) to readers.
1. Terzic A. Modern regenerative medicine dictionary: an augmented guide to biotherapy . Regen Med . 2023 ; 18 ( 12 ): 885 – 889 . 37961818 10.2217/rme-2023-0200 PMC10782411
2. McKinley KL , Longaker MT , Naik S . Emerging frontiers in regenerative medicine . Science . 2023 ; 380 ( 6647 ): 796 – 798 . 37228215 10.1126/science.add6492 PMC10493035
3. Hargraves IG , Behfar A , Foxen JL , et al . Towards regeneration: the evolution of medicine from fighting to building . BMJ . 2018 ; 361 : k1586 .
4. Terzic A , Pfenning MA , Gores GJ , et al . Regenerative medicine build-out . Stem Cells Transl Med . 2015 ; 4 ( 12 ): 1373 – 1379 . 26537392 10.5966/sctm.2015-0275 PMC4675513
5. Yamada S , Bartunek J , Povsic TJ , et al . Cell therapy improves quality-of-life in heart failure: outcomes from a phase III clinical trial . Stem Cells Transl Med . 2024 ; 13 ( 2 ): 116 – 124 . 38006196 10.1093/stcltm/szad078 PMC10872684
6. Califf RM , Marks PW . Biological therapies need definitive randomized controlled clinical trials . Sci Transl Med . 2023 ; 15 ( 680 ): eadg2970 . 36696486 10.1126/scitranslmed.adg2970
7. Yamada S , Behfar A , Terzic A . Clinical regenerative medicine readiness . Regen Med . 2021 ; 16 ( 3 ): 309 – 322 . 33622049 10.2217/rme-2020-0178 PMC8050983
8. Hernández P . Use of bone marrow-derived cells for regenerative medicine in Cuba . Bone Marrow Transplant . 2016 ; 51 ( 1 ): 134 . 26367216 10.1038/bmt.2015.200
9. Fernández-Avilés F , Sanz-Ruiz R , Climent AM , et al . Global position paper on cardiovascular regenerative medicine . Eur Heart J . 2017 ; 38 ( 33 ): 2532 – 2546 . 28575280 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx248 PMC5837698
10. Jiang S , Wang H , Yang C , et al . Phase 1 study of safety and preliminary efficacy of intranasal transplantation of human neural stem cells (ANGE-S003) in Parkinson’s disease . J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry . 2024 ; 95 ( 12 ): 1102 – 1111 . 38724232 10.1136/jnnp-2023-332921
11. Burns TC , Quinones-Hinojosa A . Regenerative medicine for neurological diseases-will regenerative neurosurgery deliver? BMJ . 2021 ; 373 : n955 . 34162530 10.1136/bmj.n955
12. Bydon M , Qu W , Moinuddin FM , et al . Intrathecal delivery of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells in traumatic spinal cord injury: phase I trial . Nat Commun . 2024 ; 15 ( 1 ): 2201 . 38561341 10.1038/s41467-024-46259-y PMC10984970
13. Schilder AGM , Wolpert S , Saeed S , et al . A phase I/IIa safety and efficacy trial of intratympanic gamma-secretase inhibitor as a regenerative drug treatment for sensorineural hearing loss . Nat Commun . 2024 ; 15 ( 1 ): 1896 . 38429256 10.1038/s41467-024-45784-0 PMC10907343
14. Le Q , Chauhan T , Yung M , et al . Outcomes of limbal stem cell transplant: a meta-analysis . JAMA Ophthalmol . 2020 ; 138 ( 6 ): 660 – 670 . 32324211 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.1120 PMC7180742
15. Panés J , García-Olmo D , Van Assche G , et al . Long-term efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy (Cx601) for complex perianal fistulas in patients with Crohn’s disease . Gastroenterology . 2018 ; 154 ( 5 ): 1334 – 42.e4 . 29277560 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.12.020
16. Cappell KM , Kochenderfer JN . Long-term outcomes following CAR T cell therapy: what we know so far . Nat Rev Clin Oncol . 2023 ; 20 ( 6 ): 359 – 371 . 37055515 10.1038/s41571-023-00754-1 PMC10100620
17. Bernardo ME , Pagliara D , Locatelli F . Mesenchymal stromal cell therapy: a revolution in regenerative medicine? Bone Marrow Transplant . 2012 ; 47 ( 2 ): 164 – 171 . 21478914 10.1038/bmt.2011.81
18. Yue L , Lim R , Owens BD . Latest advances in chondrocyte-based cartilage repair . Biomedicines . 2024 ; 12 ( 6 ): 1367 38927573 10.3390/biomedicines12061367 PMC11201646
19. Behfar A , Crespo-Diaz R , Terzic A , et al . Cell therapy for cardiac repair—lessons from clinical trials . Nature Reviews Cardiology . 2021 ; 11 : 232 – 246 . 10.1038/nrcardio.2014.9 24594893
20. Cossu G , Fears R , Griffin G , et al . Regenerative medicine: challenges and opportunities . Lancet . 2020 ; 395 ( 10239 ): 1746 – 1747 . 32505242 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31250-2
21. Alsultan A , Farge D , Kili S , et al . International society for cell and gene therapy clinical translation committee recommendations on mesenchymal stromal cells in graft-versus-host disease: easy manufacturing is faced with standardizing and commercialization challenges . Cytotherapy . 2024 ; 26 ( 10 ): 1132 – 1140 . 38804990 10.1016/j.jcyt.2024.05.007 PMC12046531
22. Dimmeler S , Ding S , Rando TA , et al . Translational strategies and challenges in regenerative medicine . Nat Med . 2014 ; 20 ( 8 ): 814 – 821 . 25100527 10.1038/nm.3627
23. Forbes SJ , Rosenthal N . Preparing the ground for tissue regeneration: from mechanism to therapy . Nat Med . 2014 ; 20 ( 8 ): 857 – 869 . 25100531 10.1038/nm.3653
24. Nelson TJ , Behfar A , Terzic A . Strategies for therapeutic repair: the “R(3)” regenerative medicine paradigm . Clin Transl Sci . 2008 ; 1 ( 2 ): 168 – 171 . 19756244 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2008.00039.x PMC2743025
25. Waldman SA , Terzic A . Process improvement for maximized therapeutic innovation outcome . Clin Pharmacol Ther . 2018 ; 103 ( 1 ): 8 – 12 . 29265398 10.1002/cpt.929 PMC5745039
26. Dib N , Menasche P , Bartunek JJ , et al . Recommendations for successful training on methods of delivery of biologics for cardiac regeneration: a report of the international society for cardiovascular translational research . JACC Cardiovasc Interv . 2010 ; 3 ( 3 ): 265 – 275 . 20298983 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.12.013
27. Yamada S , Arrell DK , Rosenow CS , et al . Ventricular remodeling in ischemic heart failure stratifies responders to stem cell therapy . Stem Cells Transl Med . 2020 ; 9 ( 1 ): 74 – 79 . 31373782 10.1002/sctm.19-0149 PMC6954701
28. Terzic A , Behfar A . Regenerative heart failure therapy headed for optimization . Eur Heart J . 2014 ; 35 ( 19 ): 1231 – 1234 . 24670713 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu117 PMC4019913
29. Borbaran-Bravo N , Arreba-Tutusaus P , Ritter MU , et al . Regenerative medicine meets translational oncology: modeling leukemic bone marrow niche . Cell Rep Med . 2022 ; 3 ( 8 ): 100724 . 35977470 10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100724 PMC9418842
30. Martínez-Montiel Mdel P , Gómez-Gómez GJ , Flores AI . Therapy with stem cells in inflammatory bowel disease . World J Gastroenterol . 2014 ; 20 ( 5 ): 1211 – 1227 . 24574796 10.3748/wjg.v20.i5.1211 PMC3921504
31. Moñivas Gallego E , Zurita Castillo M . Mesenchymal stem cell therapy in ischemic stroke trials. A systematic review . Regen Ther . 2024 ; 27 : 301 – 306 . 38633415 10.1016/j.reth.2024.03.026 PMC11021793
32. Jeyaraman N , Jeyaraman M , Ramasubramanian S , et al . Autologous conditioned serum in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review of current clinical evidence . Cureus . 2024 ; 16 ( 9 ): e68963 . 39385904 10.7759/cureus.68963 PMC11461807
33. Yassaghi Y , Nazerian Y , Niazi F , et al . Advancements in cell-based therapies for thermal burn wounds: a comprehensive systematic review of clinical trials outcomes . Stem Cell Res Ther . 2024 ; 15 ( 1 ): 277 . 39227861 10.1186/s13287-024-03901-2 PMC11373270
34. Terzic A , Behfar A , Filippatos G . Clinical development plan for regenerative therapy in heart failure . Eur J Heart Fail . 2016 ; 18 ( 2 ): 142 – 144 . 26800140 10.1002/ejhf.479 PMC5215378
35. Menasché P , Renault NK , Hagège A , et al . First-in-man use of a cardiovascular cell-derived secretome in heart failure. Case report . EBioMedicine . 2024 ; 103 : 105145 . 38713924 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105145 PMC11096705
36. Marbán E . A mechanistic roadmap for the clinical application of cardiac cell therapies . Nat Biomed Eng . 2018 ; 2 ( 6 ): 353 – 361 . 30740264 10.1038/s41551-018-0216-z PMC6366940
37. Plackett B . Cells or drugs? The race to regenerate the heart . Nature . 2021 ; 594 : S16 – S7 .
38. Bartunek J , Terzic A , Davison BA , et al . Cardiopoietic stem cell therapy in ischaemic heart failure: long-term clinical outcomes . ESC Heart Fail . 2020 ; 7 ( 6 ): 3345 – 3354 . 33094909 10.1002/ehf2.13031 PMC7754898
39. Waldman SA , Terzic A . Health care evolves from reactive to proactive . Clin Pharmacol Ther . 2019 ; 105 ( 1 ): 10 – 13 . 30597564 10.1002/cpt.1295 PMC6314203
40. Leask F , Terzic A . Regenerative outlook: offering global solutions for equitable care . Regen Med . 2020 ; 15 ( 11 ): 2249 – 2252 . 33245010 10.2217/rme-2020-0177
41. Alowais SA , Alghamdi SS , Alsuhebany N , et al . Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice . BMC Med Educ . 2023 ; 23 ( 1 ): 689 . 37740191 10.1186/s12909-023-04698-z PMC10517477
42. Greener JG , Kandathil SM , Moffat L , et al . A guide to machine learning for biologists . Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol . 2022 ; 23 ( 1 ): 40 – 55 . 34518686 10.1038/s41580-021-00407-0 •• This reference provides an authoritative introduction to foundational artificial intellgience concepts and considerations relevant to biological sciences.
43. Arrell DK , Rosenow CS , Yamada S , et al . Cardiopoietic stem cell therapy restores infarction-altered cardiac proteome . NPJ Regen Med . 2020 ; 5 : 5 . 32194990 10.1038/s41536-020-0091-6 PMC7067830
44. Arrell DK , Park S , Yamada S , et al . K(ATP) channel dependent heart multiome atlas . Sci Rep . 2022 ; 12 ( 1 ): 7314 . 35513538 10.1038/s41598-022-11323-4 PMC9072320
45. Chao CJ , Kato N , Scott CG , et al . Unsupervised machine learning for assessment of left ventricular diastolic function and risk stratification . J Am Soc Echocardiogr . 2022 ; 35 ( 12 ): 1214 – 25.e8 . 35840082 10.1016/j.echo.2022.06.013
46. Alizadeh AA , Eisen MB , Davis RE , et al . Distinct types of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma identified by gene expression profiling . Nature . 2000 ; 403 ( 6769 ): 503 – 511 . 10676951 10.1038/35000501
47. Abdulla M , Hollander P , Pandzic T , et al . Cell-of-origin determined by both gene expression profiling and immunohistochemistry is the strongest predictor of survival in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma . Am J Hematol . 2020 ; 95 ( 1 ): 57 – 67 . 31659781 10.1002/ajh.25666 PMC6916573
48. Esteva A , Robicquet A , Ramsundar B , et al . A guide to deep learning in healthcare . Nat Med . 2019 ; 25 ( 1 ): 24 – 29 . 30617335 10.1038/s41591-018-0316-z
49. Catacutan DB , Alexander J , Arnold A , et al . Machine learning in preclinical drug discovery . Nat Chem Biol . 2024 ; 20 ( 8 ): 960 – 973 . 39030362 10.1038/s41589-024-01679-1
50. Hoang DT , Dinstag G , Shulman ED , et al . A deep-learning framework to predict cancer treatment response from histopathology images through imputed transcriptomics . Nat Cancer . 2024 ; 5 ( 9 ): 1305 – 1317 . 38961276 10.1038/s43018-024-00793-2 PMC12413935
51. Nguyen HS , Ho HKN , Nguyen NN , et al . Predicting EGFR mutation status in non-small cell lung cancer using artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis . Acad Radiol . 2024 ; 31 ( 2 ): 660 – 683 . 37120403 10.1016/j.acra.2023.03.040
52. Liu X , Faes L , Kale AU , et al . A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis . Lancet Digit Health . 2019 ; 1 ( 6 ): e271 – e97 . 33323251 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30123-2
53. Wu J , Biswas D , Ryan M , et al . Artificial intelligence methods for improved detection of undiagnosed heart failure with preserved ejection fraction . Eur J Heart Fail . 2024 ; 26 ( 2 ): 302 – 310 . 38152863 10.1002/ejhf.3115
54. Nosrati H , Nosrati M . Artificial intelligence in regenerative medicine: applications and implications . Biomim (Basel) . 2023 ; 8 ( 5 ): 442 . 10.3390/biomimetics8050442 PMC10526210 37754193
55. Wang H , Fu T , du Y , et al . Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence . Nature . 2023 ; 620 ( 7972 ): 47 – 60 . 37532811 10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2
56. Vo QD , Saito Y , Ida T , et al . The use of artificial intelligence in induced pluripotent stem cell-based technology over 10-year period: a systematic scoping review . PLOS ONE . 2024 ; 19 ( 5 ): e0302537 . 38771829 10.1371/journal.pone.0302537 PMC11108174
57. Arrell DK , Crespo-Diaz RJ , Yamada S , et al . Secretome signature of cardiopoietic cells echoed in rescued infarcted heart proteome . Stem Cells Transl Med . 2021 ; 10 : 1320 – 1328 . 34047493 10.1002/sctm.20-0509 PMC8380441
58. Kim G , Jeon JH , Park K , et al . High throughput screening of mesenchymal stem cell lines using deep learning . Sci Rep . 2022 ; 12 ( 1 ): 17507 . 36266301 10.1038/s41598-022-21653-y PMC9584889
59. Garmany A , Arrell DK , Yamada S , et al . Decoded cardiopoietic cell secretome linkage to heart repair biosignature . Stem Cells Transl Med . 2024 ; 13 ( 11 ): 1144 – 1159 . 39259666 10.1093/stcltm/szae067 PMC11555478
60. Luedi PP , Dietrich FS , Weidman JR , et al . Computational and experimental identification of novel human imprinted genes . Genome Res . 2007 ; 17 ( 12 ): 1723 – 1730 . 18055845 10.1101/gr.6584707 PMC2099581
61. Roy S , Siahpirani AF , Chasman D , et al . A predictive modeling approach for cell line-specific long-range regulatory interactions . Nucleic Acids Res . 2015 ; 43 ( 18 ): 8694 – 8712 . 26338778 10.1093/nar/gkv865 PMC4605315
62. Li R , Li L , Xu Y , et al . Machine learning meets omics: applications and perspectives . Brief Bioinform . 2022 ; 23 ( 1 ): bbab460 . 34791021 10.1093/bib/bbab460 •• This reference provides an overview of artifical intelligence applications for omics studies.
63. Feng C , Chen H , Yuan X , et al . Gene expression data based deep learning model for accurate prediction of drug-induced liver injury in advance . J Chem Inf Model . 2019 ; 59 ( 7 ): 3240 – 3250 . 31188585 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00143
64. Hwang H , Liu R , Maxwell JT , et al . Machine learning identifies abnormal Ca(2+) transients in human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes . Sci Rep . 2020 ; 10 ( 1 ): 16977 . 33046816 10.1038/s41598-020-73801-x PMC7550597
65. Liu YYF , Lu Y , Oh S , et al . Machine learning to predict mesenchymal stem cell efficacy for cartilage repair . PLOS Comput Biol . 2020 ; 16 ( 10 ): e1008275 . 33027251 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008275 PMC7571701
66. Williams B , Löbel W , Finklea F , et al . Prediction of human induced pluripotent stem cell cardiac differentiation outcome by multifactorial process modeling . Front Bioeng Biotechnol . 2020 ; 8 : 851 . 32793579 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00851 PMC7390976
67. Luong TM , Nqk L . Artificial intelligence in time-lapse system: advances, applications, and future perspectives in reproductive medicine . J Assist Reprod Genet . 2024 ; 41 ( 2 ): 239 – 252 . 37880512 10.1007/s10815-023-02973-y PMC10894798
68. Jacques E , Suuronen EJ . The progression of regenerative medicine and its impact on therapy translation . Clin Transl Sci . 2020 ; 13 ( 3 ): 440 – 450 . 31981408 10.1111/cts.12736 PMC7214652
69. Hayashi Y , Matsumoto J , Kumagai S , et al . Automated adherent cell elimination by a high-speed laser mediated by a light-responsive polymer . Commun Biol . 2018 ; 1 : 218 . 30534610 10.1038/s42003-018-0222-4 PMC6286311
70. Marzec-Schmidt K , Ghosheh N , Stahlschmidt SR , et al . Artificial intelligence supports automated characterization of differentiated human pluripotent stem cells . Stem Cells . 2023 ; 41 ( 9 ): 850 – 861 . 37357747 10.1093/stmcls/sxad049 PMC10502778
71. Li Z , Song P , Li G , et al . AI energized hydrogel design, optimization and application in biomedicine . Mater Today Bio . 2024 ; 25 : 101014 . 10.1016/j.mtbio.2024.101014 PMC10924066 38464497
72. Wyles SP , Monie DD , Paradise CR , et al . Emerging workforce readiness in regenerative healthcare . Regen Med . 2021 ; 16 ( 3 ): 197 – 206 . 33622054 10.2217/rme-2020-0137 PMC8656339
73. Yamada S , Bartunek J , Behfar A , et al . Mass customized outlook for regenerative heart failure care . Int J Mol Sci . 2021 ; 22 ( 21 ): 11394 . 34768825 10.3390/ijms222111394 PMC8583673
74. Bai L , Xia Z , Triffitt JT , et al . Generation artificial intelligence (GenAI) and biomaterials translational: steering innovation without misdirection . Biomater Transl . 2024 ; 5 ( 1 ): 1 – 2 . 39220662 10.12336/biomatertransl.2024.01.001 PMC11362347
75. Warraich HJ , Tazbaz T , Califf RM . FDA perspective on the regulation of artificial intelligence in health care and biomedicine . JAMA . 2024 . doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.21451 39405330
76. Ning Y , Teixayavong S , Shang Y , et al . Generative artificial intelligence and ethical considerations in health care: a scoping review and ethics checklist . Lancet Digit Health . 2024 ; 6 ( 11 ): e848 – e56 . 39294061 10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00143-2 PMC11542614
77. Ong JCL , Chang S-H , William W , et al . Ethical and regulatory challenges of large language models in medicine . Lancet Digit Health . 2024 ; 6 ( 6 ): e428 – e32 . 38658283 10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00061-X
78. Weiss J , Hoffmann U , Aerts H . Artificial intelligence-derived imaging biomarkers to improve population health . Lancet Digit Health . 2020 ; 2 ( 4 ): e154 – e5 . 33328074 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30061-3
79. Yamada S , Jeon R , Garmany A , et al . Screening for regenerative therapy responders in heart failure . Biomark Med . 2021 ; 15 ( 10 ): 775 – 783 . 34169733 10.2217/bmm-2020-0683 PMC8252977
80. Zhang K , Cheng K . Stem cell-derived exosome versus stem cell therapy . Nat Rev Bioeng . 2023 ; 1 : 608 – 609 . 10.1038/s44222-023-00064-2 PMC10092910 37359776
81. Garmany A , Yamada S , Terzic A . Longevity leap: mind the healthspan gap . NPJ Regen Med . 2021 ; 6 ( 1 ): 57 . 34556664 10.1038/s41536-021-00169-5 PMC8460831
82. Garmany A , Terzic A . Global healthspan-lifespan gaps among 183 World Health Organization member states . JAMA Netw Open . 2024 ; 7 ( 12 ): e2450241 . 39661386 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.50241 PMC11635540
83. Li Y-H , Li Y-L , Wei M-Y , et al . Innovation and challenges of artificial intelligence technology in personalized healthcare . Sci Rep . 2024 ; 14 ( 1 ): 18994 . 39152194 10.1038/s41598-024-70073-7 PMC11329630 •• This reference discusses ethical considerations in appling artificial intelligence.
84. Yang J , Xu H , Mirzoyan S , et al . Poisoning medical knowledge using large language models . Nat Mach Intel . 2024 ; 6 ( 10 ): 1156 – 1168 .
85. Goetz L , Seedat N , Vandersluis R , et al . Generalization-a key challenge for responsible AI in patient-facing clinical applications . NPJ Digit Med . 2024 ; 7 ( 1 ): 126 . 38773304 10.1038/s41746-024-01127-3 PMC11109198
86. London AJ . Artificial intelligence in medicine: overcoming or recapitulating structural challenges to improving patient care? Cell Rep Med . 2022 ; 3 ( 5 ): 100622 . 35584620 10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100622 PMC9133460 • This reference outlines strategies to overcome current challenges in implementation of artificial intelligence.
87. Ouyang JF , Chothani S , Rackham OJL . Deep learning models will shape the future of stem cell research . Stem Cell Reports . 2023 ; 18 ( 1 ): 6 – 12 . 36630908 10.1016/j.stemcr.2022.11.007 PMC9860061
88. Mann M , Kumar C , Zeng WF , et al . Artificial intelligence for proteomics and biomarker discovery . Cell Syst . 2021 ; 12 ( 8 ): 759 – 770 . 34411543 10.1016/j.cels.2021.06.006 • This referecne reviews the use of artifical intelligence for proteomics and biomarker discovery.
89. Reddy S . Explainability and artificial intelligence in medicine . Lancet Digit Health . 2022 ; 4 ( 4 ): e214 – e5 . 35337639 10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00029-2 • This reference hilights advantages of using simple models for clincal implementation and challenges of applying overly complex models.