Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Charles Richet and Jules Héricourt workshops honor the memory of Jules Héricourt (1850-1938) and Charles Richet (1850-1935) who described the principle of serotherapy in 1888 and made the very first attempts to fight cancer with serotherapy in 1895. In 1902, Charles Richet and Paul Portier described "anaphylaxis," a discovery awarded the Nobel Prize in 1913. The first workshop, "Towards the clinical use of mAbs with higher cytolytic efficacy in cancer" was held in Tours, France on November 20-21, 2008. The second Charles Richet and Jules Héricourt workshop, held May 31-June 1, 2011 at the University of Tours, France, was also organized by the Cancéropôle Grand Ouest. The topic of the workshop was therapeutic antibodies and anaphylaxis, a subject rarely addressed in congresses focused on monoclonal antibodies. To have discussions about mAb side effects with complete objectivity, the congress was organized independently of any sponsorship from pharmaceutical companies. This academic event was motivated by the high incidence of shocks to cetuximab and the need to compile and evaluate scattered information. This growing public health concern was thus analyzed from different scientific and medical angles. The first session was devoted to acute infusion reactions, with an emphasis on deconvolution of the terms "cytokine-release syndrome," "cytokine storms," "anaphylaxis" and their epidemiology. This session concluded with the Charles Richet lecture on cetuximab anaphylaxis and anti-αGal IgE by Thomas Platts-Mills, its discoverer. In the next session, the involvement of anti-glycan antibodies in both anaphylaxis and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to therapeutic antibodies was discussed. A gala dinner was held in the gardens of the beautiful château of Villandry, which was acquired and restored by Joachim Carvalho, a pupil of Charles Richet's and great-grandfather of the present owner. The final session focused on strategies to prevent cetuximab anaphylaxis in clinical practice included a variety of topics, e.g., premedication, biobetters and biosimilars, skin testing and predictive assays. All speakers and attendees enjoyed this very stimulating and rewarding meeting, which gathered many people with divergent scientific backgrounds and medical specialties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.039 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".