group matching
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

52
(FIVE YEARS 6)

H-INDEX

10
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
pp. 136216882110402
Author(s):  
Audrey Rousse-Malpat ◽  
Lise Koote ◽  
Rasmus Steinkrauss ◽  
Marjolijn Verspoor

We investigated the effectiveness of two different teaching methods based on two different theoretical views of how languages are learned in oral proficiency after three years of L2 French instruction. The first method is commonly used in the Netherlands and is in line with structure-based (SB) principles, viewing language as a set of grammar rules that need to be explained to achieve accuracy, usually in the L1. The second method aligns with dynamic-usage-based (DUB) principles in that language is viewed as a set of conventionalized routines that are learned through frequent exposure and the L2 is spoken exclusively in class. In a large study (Rousse-Malpat et al., 2019), the DUB method proved more effective, but the effects of method and L2 exposure could not be separated as the amount of L2 exposure is a crucial difference between the methods. However, one SB teacher spoke French almost exclusively, comparable to what happens in a DUB classroom. In this study, we compared this SB group with a DUB group matching in scholastic aptitude. The free oral L2 French production of 41 Dutch participants was measured in terms of holistic and analytical scores. The DUB method was more effective in terms of general proficiency, fluency, grammatical complexity, accuracy of the present tense, and overall L2 use. Our findings suggest that a teaching method in line with DUB principles is more beneficial in achieving overall oral proficiency and explicit grammar is not needed to achieve accuracy.


Author(s):  
Yanhong Wang ◽  
Yi Ouyang ◽  
Jingjing Su ◽  
Lihua Xiao ◽  
Zhigang Bai ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective We used National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Result database to assess the role of salvage radiotherapy for women with unanticipated cervical cancer after simple hysterectomy. Methods Patients with non-metastatic cervical cancer and meeting inclusion criteria were divided into three groups based on treatment strategy: simple hysterectomy, salvage radiotherapy after hysterectomy and radical surgery. Parallel propensity score-matched datasets were established for salvage radiotherapy group vs. simple hysterectomy group (matching ratio 1: 1), and salvage radiotherapy group vs. radical surgery group (matching ratio 1:2). The primary endpoint was the overall survival advantage of salvage radiotherapy over simple hysterectomy or radical surgery within the propensity score-matched datasets. Results In total, 2682 patients were recruited: 647 in the simple hysterectomy group, 564 in the salvage radiotherapy group and 1471 in the radical surgery group. Age, race, histology, grade, FIGO stage, insured and marital status and chemotherapy were comprised in propensity score-matched. Matching resulted in two comparison groups with neglectable differences in most variables, except for black race, FIGO stage III and chemotherapy in first matching. In the matched analysis for salvage radiotherapy vs. simple hysterectomy, the median follow-up time was 39 versus 32 months. In the matched analysis for salvage radiotherapy vs. radical surgery, the median follow-up time was 39 and 41 months, respectively. Salvage radiotherapy (HR 0.53, P = 0.046) significantly improved overall survival compared with simple hysterectomy, while salvage radiotherapy cannot achieve similar overall survival to radical surgery (HR 1.317, P = 0.045). Conclusions This is the largest study of the effect of salvage radiotherapy on overall survival in patients with unanticipated cervical cancer. Salvage radiotherapy can improve overall survival compared with hysterectomy alone, while cannot achieve comparable survival to radical surgery.


Author(s):  
Alan D. Penman ◽  
Kimberly W. Crowder ◽  
William M. Watkins

The Collaborative Cornea Transplant Studies (CCTS) comprised two randomized, double-masked, clinical trials, the Antigen Matching Study (AMS) and the Crossmatch Study (CS), designed to determine whether matching HLA-A, -B, and/or HLA-DR antigens, donor-recipient crossmatching, or ABO compatibility reduced the risk of corneal allograft rejection and failure in high-risk patients. The studies showed that for patients needing a corneal graft with uncompromised immune systems and at high risk for corneal graft rejection: (1) neither HLA-A, -B, nor HLA-DR antigen matching substantially reduces the likelihood of corneal graft failure; (2) a positive donor-recipient crossmatch does not dramatically increase the risk of corneal graft failure; and (3) ABO blood group matching may be effective in reducing the risk of graft failure. Intensive steroid therapy after transplantation, frequent follow-up, medication and follow-up compliance, and patient education appear to play a significant role in corneal graft success.


2019 ◽  
Vol 338 ◽  
pp. 83-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuai Zheng ◽  
Chris Ding

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aline Melina Vaz ◽  
Andréia Schmidt

Abstract Shared book reading favors incidental learning of vocabulary; however, studies indicate that the previous vocabulary level of the child interferes with learning. The aim of this study was to compare the learning relations between pseudowords and figures of children aged 3 and 7 years in a shared book reading situation and to investigate the possible occurrence of the Matthew Effect. A book with four pseudowords developed for this study was read three consecutive times to 10 children of each age group. Matching-to-sample, exclusion, naming, and description of the use probes were applied immediately after the reading and one week later. No significant differences were found between the performances of both groups, except for the exclusion probes, without incidence of the Matthew Effect. Learning words is a continuous process that involves frequency and contexts of exposure to the words.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuki Yoshida ◽  
Zhi Yu ◽  
Gail A. Greendale ◽  
Kristine Ruppert ◽  
Yinjuan Lian ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document