How regenerative is “regenerative”? A quantitative score to benchmark therapy performance across tissues

The term "regenerative" now describes an extraordinarily broad range of therapies: advanced cell and gene therapies sit alongside off-the-shelf scaffolds, injectable biologics, and topical formulations. Yet there are no agreed criteria for what regenerative means. Assessment tools that do exist focus on single tissues and were never designed to compare different product types. As a result, regenerative labeling is largely self-assigned and often binary: a product is either regenerative or it is not.This manuscript proposes the Regenerative Potential Score (RPS), a conceptual framework to quantify how regenerative a product is within a specific tissue context. The RPS looks at three aspects of regeneration: how cells respond, how much new matrix forms, and whether the product integrates functionally in vivo. Each aspect is measured using two core assays. Results are converted to standardized effect sizes and combined into a single score. The framework anchors these numbers to negative controls and current best-practice treatments, so scores reflect real clinical differences rather than arbitrary thresholds. The goal is to provide a shared language that makes comparisons more transparent and pushes the field toward consensus-based testing standards.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Regenerative Medicine
Published
2025-12-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/17460751.2026.2626080
Primary Topic
Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How regenerative is “regenerative”? A quantitative score to benchmark therapy performance across tissues

Franco Grimolizzi
Regenerative Medicine
Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
article

How regenerative is “regenerative”? A quantitative score to benchmark therapy performance across tissues

Franco Grimolizzi
article en

Abstract

The term "regenerative" now describes an extraordinarily broad range of therapies: advanced cell and gene therapies sit alongside off-the-shelf scaffolds, injectable biologics, and topical formulations. Yet there are no agreed criteria for what regenerative means. Assessment tools that do exist focus on single tissues and were never designed to compare different product types. As a result, regenerative labeling is largely self-assigned and often binary: a product is either regenerative or it is not.This manuscript proposes the Regenerative Potential Score (RPS), a conceptual framework to quantify how regenerative a product is within a specific tissue context. The RPS looks at three aspects of regeneration: how cells respond, how much new matrix forms, and whether the product integrates functionally in vivo. Each aspect is measured using two core assays. Results are converted to standardized effect sizes and combined into a single score. The framework anchors these numbers to negative controls and current best-practice treatments, so scores reflect real clinical differences rather than arbitrary thresholds. The goal is to provide a shared language that makes comparisons more transparent and pushes the field toward consensus-based testing standards.

Regenerative MedicineVol. 20(12)
University of Oslo (NO)
Openalex Percentile: Top 28%
Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

How regenerative is “regenerative”? A quantitative score to benchmark therapy performance across tissues — Franco Grimolizzi · Regenerative Medicine (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS