Localization and writing for a new medium : a review of digital style guides

Durant les últimes dues dècades, un nombre creixent de publicacions han descrit les diferències entre l'escriptura per imprimir i l'escriptura per visualitzar en pantalla, des d'una perspectiva tant normativa com empírica. Aquestes recomanacions són molt importants per als localitzadors: la capacitat d'ajustar l'estil d'escriptura per a diferents mitjans, gèneres i situacions de comunicació és una de les habilitats essencials que aquests professionals han d'adquirir. Aquest article ofereix una revisió de les recomanacions de les guies d'estil de redacció de programari i per a la web; ofereix un resum concís als professionals de la localització i els traductors nous en procés de formació. La visió general inclou directrius relatives a idiomes, tipus de localització, guies d'estil específiques d'empreses i també publicacions relatives a la usabilitat.Durante las dos últimas décadas, un creciente número de publicaciones han descrito las diferencias entre la escritura para ser impresa y la escritura para leer en pantalla, desde una perspectiva tanto normativa como empírica. Estas recomendaciones son de suma importancia para los localizadores, ya que la capacidad de ajustar el estilo de escritura para diferentes medios, géneros y situaciones de comunicación es una de las habilidades esenciales que estos profesionales deben adquirir. Este artículo ofrece una revisión de las recomendaciones incluidas en las guías de estilo de redacción de software y de entornos web, con la intención de ofrecer un resumen conciso a los profesionales de la localización y a los traductores nuevos en proceso de formación. La visión general incluye directrices de idioma, tipo de localización, guías de estilo específicas de empresas y también publicaciones relativas a la usabilidad.Over the last two decades, an increasing number of publications have described the differences between print and screen writing, both from prescriptive and empirical perspectives. These recommendations are of paramount importance to localizers, as the ability to adjust their writing style to different mediums, genres and communicative situations is one of the essential skills these professionals should acquire. This paper offers a review of recommendations in web and software writing style guides in order to provide a concise summary for localization professionals and trainees. The overview encompasses guidelines from language, localization type, company-specific style guides, and usability publications

Regulation of lung macrophage activation following irritant-induced injury by farnesoid X receptor FXR

FXR is a nuclear receptor that negatively regulates the transcription factor, NFĸB and macrophage inflammatory responses. Herein, we analyzed the role of FXR in lung macrophage activation following exposure of mice to ozone, a pulmonary irritant known to cause macrophage dependent tissue injury. Increased FXR expression was observed in the lungs of mice treated with ozone (0.8 ppm, 3 h); proinflammatory Ly6CHi macrophages were also increased, along with expression of iNOS and TLR4. Loss of FXR resulted in increases in Ly6CHi macrophages and prolonged upregulation of iNOS and TLR4; conversely, anti-inflammatory YM1+ macrophages were decreased, while Ly6CLo macrophages were increased. Changes in lung macrophage populations in FXR-/- mice were linked to exacerbation of ozone toxicity, as measured by cytochrome b5 expression and more pronounced structural changes. These data suggest that FXR plays a role in limiting macrophage inflammatory responses to irritant induced lung injury. (NIH Grants: ES004738, ES005022, AR055073)

Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for mild Guillain-Barré syndrome. An international observational study

Objective: To compare the disease course in patients with mild Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) who were treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) or supportive care only. Methods: We selected patients from the prospective observational International GBS Outcome Study (IGOS) who were able to walk independently at study entry (mild GBS), treated with one IVIg course or supportive care. The primary endpoint was the GBS disability score four weeks after study entry, assessed by multivariable ordinal regression analysis. Results: Of 188 eligible patients, 148 (79%) were treated with IVIg and 40 (21%) with supportive care. The IVIg group was more disabled at baseline. IVIg treatment was not associated with lower GBS disability scores at 4 weeks (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.13). Nearly all secondary endpoints showed no benefit from IVIg, although the time to regain full muscle strength was shorter (28 vs 56 days, p=0.03) and reported pain at 26 weeks was lower (n=26/121, 22% vs n=12/30, 40%, p=0.04) in the IVIg treated patients. In the subanalysis with persistent mild GBS in the first 2 weeks, the aOR for a lower GBS disability score at 4 weeks was 2.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 7.13). At 1 year, 40% of all patients had residual symptoms. Conclusion: In patients with mild GBS, one course of IVIg did not improve the overall disease course. The certainty of this conclusion is limited by confounding factors, selection bias and wide confidence limits. Residual symptoms were often present after one year, indicating the need for better treatments in mild GBS

Second IVIg course in Guillain-Barré syndrome with poor prognosis. The non-randomised ISID study

Objective To compare disease course in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) with a poor prognosis who were treated with one or with two intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) courses. Methods From the International GBS Outcome Study, we selected patients whose modified Erasmus GBS Outcome Score at week 1 predicted a poor prognosis. We compared those treated with one IVIg course to those treated with two IVIg courses. The primary endpoint, the GBS disability scale at 4 weeks, was assessed with multivariable ordinal regression. Results Of 237 eligible patients, 199 patients received a single IVIg course. Twenty patients received an α early' second IVIg course (1-2 weeks after start of the first IVIg course) and 18 patients a α late' second IVIg course (2-4 weeks after start of IVIg). At baseline and 1 week, those receiving two IVIg courses were more disabled than those receiving one course. Compared with the one course group, the adjusted OR for a better GBS disability score at 4 weeks was 0.70 (95%CI 0.16 to 3.04) for the early group and 0.66 (95%CI 0.18 to 2.50) for the late group. The secondary endpoints were not in favour of a second IVIg course. Conclusions This observational study did not show better outcomes after a second IVIg course in GBS with poor prognosis. The study was limited by small numbers and baseline imbalances. Lack of improvement was likely an incentive to start a second IVIg course. A prospective randomised trial is needed to evaluate whether a second IVIg course improves outcome in GBS