Institution
Paris Descartes University
Government•Paris, France•
About: Paris Descartes University is a government organization based out in Paris, France. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Immune system. The organization has 20987 authors who have published 37456 publications receiving 1206222 citations. The organization is also known as: Université Paris V-Descartes & Université de Paris V.
Topics: Population, Immune system, Cancer, Transplantation, Pregnancy
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Technical University of Denmark1, University of Paris2, University of Washington3, Free University of Berlin4, Paris Descartes University5, Novo Nordisk Foundation6, Robert Koch Institute7, Federal Institute for Risk Assessment8, University of Antwerp9, University of Copenhagen10, Hvidovre Hospital11, Animal and Plant Health Agency12, ANSES13
TL;DR: WGS-based AST using ResFinder 4.0 provides in silico antibiograms as reliable as those obtained by phenotypic AST at least for the bacterial species/antimicrobial agents of major public health relevance considered.
Abstract: WGS-based antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is as reliable as phenotypic AST for several antimicrobial/bacterial species combinations. However, routine use of WGS-based AST is hindered by the need for bioinformatics skills and knowledge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) determinants to operate the vast majority of tools developed to date. By leveraging on ResFinder and PointFinder, two freely accessible tools that can also assist users without bioinformatics skills, we aimed at increasing their speed and providing an easily interpretable antibiogram as output.
1,155 citations
TL;DR: CD14dim monocytes were weak phagocytes and did not produce ROS or cytokines in response to cell-surface Toll-like receptors, but selectively produced TNF-α, IL-1β, and CCL3 inresponse to viruses and immune complexes containing nucleic acids, via a proinflammatory TLR7-TLR 8-MyD88-MEK pathway.
1,149 citations
Mayo Clinic1, New York University2, University of Hamburg3, George Washington University4, University of Girona5, Johns Hopkins University6, St George's, University of London7, Harvard University8, University of Ottawa9, Hospital for Sick Children10, University of Miami11, Paris Descartes University12, University College London13, University of Sydney14, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center15, John Radcliffe Hospital16, University of Amsterdam17, Indiana University18
TL;DR: This international consensus statement provides the state of genetic testing for the channelopathy and cardiomyopathies and summarizes the opinion of the international writing group members based on their own experience and on a general review of the literature with respect to the use and role of geneticTesting for these potentially heritable cardiac conditions.
Abstract: This international consensus statement provides the state of genetic testing for the channelopathies and cardiomyopathies. It summarizes the opinion of the international writing group members based on their own experience and on a general review of the literature with respect to the use and role of genetic testing for these potentially heritable cardiac conditions. This document focuses primarily on the state of genetic testing for the 13 distinct entities detailed and the relative diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic impact of the genetic test result for each entity. It does not focus on the therapeutic management of the various channelopathies and cardiomyopathies. Treatment/management issues are only discussed for those diseases (i.e., LQTS, HCM, DCM + CCD, RCM) in which the genetic test result could potentially influence treatment considerations.
Writing recommendations for genetic diseases require adaptation of the methodology normally adopted to prepare guidelines for clinical practice. Documents produced by other scientific societies have acknowledged the need to define the criteria used to rank the strength of recommendation for genetic diseases.1
The most obvious difference is that randomized and/or blinded studies do not exist. Instead, most of the available data are derived from registries that have followed patients and recorded outcome information. The authors of this statement have therefore defined specific criteria for Class I, Class IIa or b, and Class III recommendations and have used the conventional language adopted by AHA/ACC/ESC Guidelines to express each class. All recommendations are level of evidence (LOE) C (i.e., based on experts' opinions).
A Class I recommendation ( “is recommended” ) was applied for genetic testing in index cases with a sound clinical suspicion for the presence of a channelopathy or a cardiomyopathy when the positive predictive value of a genetic test is high (likelihood of positive result >40% and signal/noise ratio >10; Table 3), AND/OR when …
1,147 citations
Leiden University Medical Center1, Ruhr University Bochum2, Ghent University Hospital3, Universidade Nova de Lisboa4, University of Zurich5, Sorbonne6, Paris Descartes University7, Semmelweis University8, VU University Medical Center9, University of Toronto10, University College London11, University of Leeds12, Erciyes University13, University of Lisbon14, University of Texas at Austin15, Charité16, Ghent University17, University of São Paulo18
TL;DR: The 2016 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA and three overarching principles and 13 recommendations deal with surgery and spinal fractures.
Abstract: To update and integrate the recommendations for ankylosing spondylitis and the recommendations for the use of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) into one set applicable to the full spectrum of patients with axSpA. Following the latest version of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Standardised Operating Procedures, two systematic literature reviews first collected the evidence regarding all treatment options (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) that were published since 2009. After a discussion of the results in the steering group and presentation to the task force, overarching principles and recommendations were formulated, and consensus was obtained by informal voting. A total of 5 overarching principles and 13 recommendations were agreed on. The first three recommendations deal with personalised medicine including treatment target and monitoring. Recommendation 4 covers non-pharmacological management. Recommendation 5 describes the central role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-choice drug treatment. Recommendations 6-8 define the rather modest role of analgesics, and disprove glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for axSpA patents with predominant axial involvement. Recommendation 9 refers to biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) including TNFi and IL-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) for patients with high disease activity despite the use (or intolerance/contraindication) of at least two NSAIDs. In addition, they should either have an elevated C reactive protein and/or definite inflammation on MRI and/or radiographic evidence of sacroiliitis. Current practice is to start with a TNFi. Switching to another TNFi or an IL-17i is recommended in case TNFi fails (recommendation 10). Tapering, but not stopping a bDMARD, can be considered in patients in sustained remission (recommendation 11). The final two recommendations (12, 13) deal with surgery and spinal fractures. The 2016 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-EULAR recommendations provide up-to-date guidance on the management of patients with axSpA.
1,147 citations
Paris Descartes University1, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University2, French Institute of Health and Medical Research3, University of Bern4, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg5, Providence Portland Medical Center6, Radboud University Nijmegen7, Umeå University8, Karolinska Institutet9, Humanitas University10, Medical University of Graz11, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust12, Charles University in Prague13, Cornell University14, University Health Network15, University of Toronto16, Keio University17, Yamaguchi University18, Kindai University19, Harvard University20, Royal Melbourne Hospital21, University of Melbourne22, Sapporo Medical University23, Kurume University24, Xi'an Jiaotong University25, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center26, Mayo Clinic27, Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy28, Oregon Health & Science University29
TL;DR: In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC/UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC or UICCTNM classification.
Abstract: The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (AJCC/UICC) TNM staging system provides the most reliable guidelines for the routine prognostication and treatment of colorectal carcinoma. This traditional tumour staging summarizes data on tumour burden (T), the presence of cancer cells in draining and regional lymph nodes (N) and evidence for distant metastases (M). However, it is now recognized that the clinical outcome can vary significantly among patients within the same stage. The current classification provides limited prognostic information and does not predict response to therapy. Multiple ways to classify cancer and to distinguish different subtypes of colorectal cancer have been proposed, including morphology, cell origin, molecular pathways, mutation status and gene expression-based stratification. These parameters rely on tumour-cell characteristics. Extensive literature has investigated the host immune response against cancer and demonstrated the prognostic impact of the in situ immune cell infiltrate in tumours. A methodology named 'Immunoscore' has been defined to quantify the in situ immune infiltrate. In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC/UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC/UICC TNM classification. An international consortium has been initiated to validate and promote the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings. The results of this international consortium may result in the implementation of the Immunoscore as a new component for the classification of cancer, designated TNM-I (TNM-Immune).
1,128 citations
Authors
Showing all 21023 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guido Kroemer | 236 | 1404 | 246571 |
| Cyrus Cooper | 204 | 1869 | 206782 |
| Jean-Laurent Casanova | 144 | 842 | 76173 |
| Alain Fischer | 143 | 770 | 81680 |
| Maxime Dougados | 134 | 1054 | 69979 |
| Carlos López-Otín | 126 | 494 | 83933 |
| Giuseppe Viale | 123 | 740 | 72799 |
| Thierry Poynard | 119 | 668 | 64548 |
| Lorenzo Galluzzi | 118 | 477 | 71436 |
| Shahrokh F. Shariat | 118 | 1637 | 58900 |
| Richard E. Tremblay | 116 | 685 | 45844 |
| Olivier Hermine | 111 | 1026 | 43779 |
| Yehezkel Ben-Ari | 110 | 459 | 44293 |
| Loïc Guillevin | 108 | 800 | 51085 |
| Gérard Socié | 107 | 920 | 44186 |