48 research outputs found
λΉλ¨λ³ νμμμ λ©νΈν΄λ―Ό μΉλ£κ° μΈμ§κΈ°λ₯ λ³νμ λ―ΈμΉλ μν₯ νκ°
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ (μμ¬)-- μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ : μνκ³Ό, 2015. 2. λ¬Έλ―Όκ²½.Introduction: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic disease that has high morbidity and mortality related to cardiovascular complications and microvascular disease, especially in the elderly. In addition, DM is known to increase the risk of Alzheimers dementia by two to three times. Therefore it is important to inhibit its development and progression during the management of DM. However, there is a concern that metformin which is widely used as the first line antidiabetic medication is associated with a decrease in cognitive function. The aim of the present study is to investigate the associations between metformin use and cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes.
Methods: As an observational study, over 5457 patients registered with the Department of Mental Health of Boramae Medical center (BMC) and the Dementia Project from 2011 could be evaluated. We reviewed the medical records of patients and compared baseline characteristics according to DM and non-DM, and divided the DM groups into metformin user and nonuser groups then compared their cognitive function using mainly the Mini-Mental state Examination-KC (MMSE-KC), the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimers Diseases Assessment (CERAD-K), activities of daily living (ADL) skills and Short form of the Geriatric Depression Scale (SGDS). Subjects performed the tests at baseline and at one- or two- year follow-up periods.
Results: Among the 2208 individuals who participated in this study, 608 had diabetes mellitus, and 34.7% (n=211) of the DM group used metformin at baseline. The mean age of metformin users was 73.8 years, and 38% were male. Patients with metformin were younger (73.8Β±7.5 vs. 75.5Β±7.9 years, p-value 0.01), had higher HbA1c levels, lower HDL β C levels, lower LDL β C levels, and lower AST levels, all showing statistical significance. There were no significant differences in cognitive dysfunction as assessed by MMSE-KC, CERAD, and ADL between metformin users and nonusers after adjusting for age, sex, education-year, HbA1c levels, and LDL levels. In an analysis of each component on the CERAD test, the working memory test revealed that metformin users required significantly more time to perform a certain task compared to nonusers. There was no significant association between metformin use and the progression of cognitive impairment.
Conclusions: Taken together, in this study, metformin treatment was not significantly associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment in older adults with diabetes, after adjusting for age, gender, education duration, other variables and glycemic and metabolic controls. A well controlled study on a larger-scale is necessary in order to explain the effects and determine the association between metformin use and cognitive dysfunction more clearly.Abstract i
Contents iii
List of tables β
³
List of figures β
΄
Introduction 1
Aim of study 6
Methods 7
Results 12
Discussion 32
References 36
Supplements 41
Abstract in Korean 45Maste
μμ©μ /μμ°μ κ³Όμ κ³Ό λ¬Έμ₯ λ¬Έλ§₯μ΄ νκ΅ μ€νκ΅ νμλ€μ μμ΄ μ΄ν 보μ μ μ§μμ λ―ΈμΉλ μν₯
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ (μμ¬)-- μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ : μΈκ΅μ΄κ΅μ‘κ³Ό μμ΄ μ 곡, 2016. 2. μ΄λ³λ―Ό.The present thesis attempts to investigate the effects of task type (productive versus receptive) and sentence contexts (same versus diverse) on the vocabulary learning of Korean middle school English students in two areas: overall vocabulary learning, and the gain and retention of specific vocabulary knowledge. First, this study will look at the impact that the two variables have on overall vocabulary learningmeasured using the sum score of five different tests (recognition, passive word learning, active word learning, and two productive vocabulary use tests: gap-filling and word reordering). Second, the gain and retention of specific vocabulary knowledge measured by the five tests will be compared to verify the impact of the two variables.
The receptive and productive aspects of vocabulary have been derived from the two fundamental communication processes, so both aspects are worth studying. Although many studies agree on the superiority of productive tasks over receptive tasks in vocabulary instruction, the results between these studies have been inconsistenttherefore, more research is needed on the impact of these two tasks.
Moreover, vocabulary tasks in Korea largely depend on receptive vocabulary instruction rather than productive instruction, which goes against the majority of findings from previous research that suggest productive vocabulary instruction is more effective. Context, the other important factor for vocabulary learning, has been a controversial issue in the vocabulary instruction research. Many studies were conducted to determine whether context should be provided for vocabulary learning but few studies were conducted on how to effectively provide context for vocabulary instruction. In other words, these two factors are significant factors influencing vocabulary learning, but few studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between these two variables. Therefore, this study attempts to integrate sentence contexts into the types of tasks so that the interactive effect of both variables on vocabulary knowledge development can be examined. Besides, this study attempts to scrutinize the multifaceted features of lexical knowledge, so five different sorts of assessment have been implemented.
In this study, 117 3rd grade middle school students in Korea completed one of four different treatment combinations, each having a different combination of the two task types and two sentence contexts (receptive task and same context - RS, receptive task and diverse context - RD, productive task and same context - PS, productive task and diverse context β PD), and took immediate and one-week delayed post-tests. Each of the two tests was composed of five different tests.
Regarding overall vocabulary learning, the results of this study revealed that task type was a factor that significantly affected vocabulary learning in both immediate word gain and its retention but sentence contexts were not. However, the interaction effect between the two variables was shown in word retention. The same context had a positive effect on the productive task but not on the receptive task. The findings from the individual analysis of the five vocabulary tests showed similar results regarding word retention with the exception of the two productive use tests. The task effect was substantial, while that of context was not.
Above all, the productive task was statistically shown to have considerable power to help students retain several stages of vocabulary knowledge with the exception of the productive use tests. When combined with the task, sentence contexts had a strong effect on vocabulary learning in passive and active word learning tests. On the other hand, the retention of word knowledge, measured by the productive use of vocabulary tests, was influenced fundamentally by sentence contexts rather than task type. Results and the implications regarding task types and sentence contexts are discussed.CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. The Purpose of the Study 1
1.2. Research Questions 7
1.3. Organization of the Thesis 8
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1. Vocabulary Knowledge 9
2.1.1. Reception and Production 10
2.1.2. Vocabulary Breadth and Depth 12
2.1.3. Context of Vocabulary Use 14
2.2. Research Issues in Vocabulary Instruction 15
2.2.1. Effects of Receptive and Productive Tasks on Vocabulary Learning 16
2.2.2. Effects of Context on Vocabulary Learning 20
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 25
3.1. Research Design 25
3.2. Participants 26
3.3. Procedure 28
3.4. Instruments 29
3.4.1. Target Words 29
3.4.2. Sample Sentences 30
3.5. Treatment 30
3.5.1. The Receptive Task Groups 32
3.5.2. The Productive Task Groups 33
3.6. Assessment 34
3.6.1. Active Word Learning Test 35
3.6.2. Recognition Test 35
3.6.3. Passive Word Learning Test 36
3.6.4. Two Productive Use Tests: Gap-Filling and Word Reordering Test 37
3.6.5. Scoring 38
3.7. Data Analysis 42
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 43
4.1. The Effects of Task Type and Sentence Contexts on the Overall Immediate Vocabulary Learning and Retention 43
4.2. The Effects of Task Type and Sentence Contexts on the Immediate Learning and Retention of Specific Vocabulary Knowledge 53
4.2.1. Recognition Test 53
4.2.2. Passive Word Learning Test 58
4.2.3. Active Word Learning Test 64
4.2.4. Two Productive Use Tests 69
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION 83
5.1. Major Findings 83
5.2. Pedagogical Implications 86
5.3. Limitations and Suggestions 87
REFERENCES 90
APPENDIX 101
APPENDIX 1. Consent Form 101
APPENDIX 2. Receptive Task 107
APPENDIX 3. Productive Task 110
APPENDIX 4. Active Word Learning TestImmediate 113
APPENDIX 5. Recognition Test and Passive Word Learning TestImmediate 114
APPENDIX 6. Gap-Filling TestImmediate 115
APPENDIX 7. Word Reordering TestImmediate 116
APPENDIX 8. Active Word Learning TestDelayed 117
APPENDIX 9. Recognition Test and Passive Word Learning TestDelayed 118
APPENDIX 10. Gap-Filling TestDelayed 119
APPENDIX 11. Word Reordering TestDelayed 120
κ΅λ¬Έ μ΄λ‘ 121Maste
Association between exposure to smoking scenes in movies and smoking behavior among Korean young adults
μν건κ°μ¦μ§νκ³Ό/μμ¬μ°κ΅¬λͺ©μ : μν μ ν‘μ° μ₯λ©΄ λ
ΈμΆμ΄ νμ¬ λ° λ―Έλ ν‘μ°κ³Ό κ΄λ ¨μ΄ μλμ§λ₯Ό νν₯μ μ‘°μ¬λ₯Ό ν΅νμ¬ ν₯ν μ²μλ
κΈμ°μ μ±
κ°λ°μ μν κΈ°μ΄ μλ£λ‘ μ 곡νκ³ μ νλ€. μ°κ΅¬ λμμλ€μ μν μ ν‘μ° μ₯λ©΄μ λ
ΈμΆ μ¬λΆ λ° νμλ₯Ό νμ
νκ³ , μν μ ν‘μ° μ₯λ©΄κ³Ό νμ¬ λ° λ―Έλ ν‘μ°μμ§μμ κ΄λ ¨μ±μ νμ
νλ€. μ°κ΅¬λ°©λ²: κ³ λ±νμκ³Ό λνμ 1,075λͺ
μ λμμΌλ‘ μκΈ°κΈ°μ
μ μ€λ¬Έμ‘°μ¬λ₯Ό μ€μνμλ€. 2005βΌ2006λ
9μλ§κΉμ§ κ°λ΄λ μ΄ 70νΈμ νκ΅μν μ ν‘μ° μ₯λ©΄ λͺ¨λν°λ§ μλ£λ₯Ό νμ©νμλ€. λΆμμ μνμ¬ PASW Statistics 18μ μ¬μ©νμλ€. μ°κ΅¬κ²°κ³Ό: μ²μλ
ν‘μ°μ μν₯μ λ―ΈμΉλ λ³μλ€μ ν΅μ ν μνμμ μν μ ν‘μ° μ₯λ©΄ λ
ΈμΆ νμμ νμ¬ ν‘μ°μνμ κ΄λ ¨μ±μ λΆμν κ²°κ³Ό, κ°μ₯ λ
ΈμΆμ΄ λ§μλ κ·Έλ£Ή(133-340ν)μ΄ 50ν μ΄ν κ·Έλ£Ήμ λΉν΄ νμ¬ ν‘μ°μ¨μ΄ 38.6λ°°(95% CI, 15.6-95.2) λμλ€. νμ¬ ν‘μ°μ μν₯μ μ£Όλ κ°μ₯ μ€μν μνμμΈμ μν μ ν‘μ° μ₯λ©΄ λ
ΈμΆμ΄ κ°μ₯ λμμΌλ©° κ³Όκ±°ν‘μ° μ 무, μΉκ΅¬μ ν‘μ°κΆμ μ λν μμ, λ΄λ°°λΈλλ λ¬Όνμμ§ μ 무, λΆλͺ¨μ ν‘μ°μ 무 μμΌλ‘ ν΅κ³μ μΌλ‘ μ μνμλ€. κ²°λ‘ λ° μ μΈ: μ΄μμ κ²°κ³Όλ₯Ό μ’
ν©νμ¬ λ³΄λ©΄ μν μ ν‘μ° μ₯λ©΄ λ
ΈμΆκ³Ό νμ¬ ν‘μ°κ³Όμ μκ΄κ΄κ³λ₯Ό νμΈν μ μμλ€. λ°λΌμ μ΄ μ°κ΅¬ κ²°κ³Όλ ν₯ν μ²μλ
κΈμ°μ μ±
μ립μ μ€μν κ·Όκ±°λ‘ νμ©λ μ μμ κ²μΌλ‘ κΈ°λλλ€. μ΄λ₯Ό λ°νμΌλ‘ μ°λ¦¬λλΌ μνλ±κΈλΆλ₯ κΈ°μ€μ λͺ
νν μνμ΄ νμνλ©°, νμ¬ κ΅λ―Όκ±΄κ°μ¦μ§λ² νΉμ λ΄λ°°μ¬μ
λ²μ μν μ ν‘μ° μ₯λ©΄μ λν κ·μ κ° νμνλ©°, λΆλͺ¨μ κ΄μ¬μ΄ μ²μλ
ν‘μ°μ λ―ΈμΉλ μν₯μ΄ ν° λ§νΌ μν μ ν‘μ° μ₯λ©΄μ΄ μ²μλ
μκ² λ―ΈμΉλ μν₯μ 보νΈμμκ² μΈμμν¬ νμκ° μμμ μ μΈνμλ€.ope
μ μμ μΈκ· κ°μΌμ¦ μ§λ¨μμ νμ² procalcitoninμΉμ μμμ μ μ©μ±
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ(μμ¬)--μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ :μνκ³Ό μμκ³Όνμ 곡,2001.Maste
λ§μ± μ μ°μ μκ·Ήμ μν νμ‘°μ§ μ΄μΆ©κ²© λ¨λ°± 70μ λ°νκ³Ό μΈν¬ μ¦μ λ° μλ©Έμ¬μ μμ
νμλ
Όλ¬Έ(λ°μ¬)--μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ :μνκ³Ό μμκ³Όνμ 곡,2004.Docto
λ€μν μ§μμ΄ κ²½μ μ±κ³Όμ λ―ΈμΉλ μμ΄ν μν₯ : νΉν, μ€μ©μ μ κ·Έλ¦¬κ³ κ³Όνμ§μμ μ€μ¬μΌλ‘
Thesis(doctors) --μμΈλνκ΅ λνμ :κ²½μ νλΆ(κ²½μ νμ 곡),2009.8.Docto