Aspect and Modality in Indonesian the Case of Sudah, Telah, Pernah, and Sempat

In this paper, I describe four Indonesian aspect markers, sudah, telah, pernah, and sempat, showing that the main opposition between them relies not only on their aspectual meanings, but also on the various modalities they express. The opposition between the very frequent markers sudah and telah is analysed in detail. The syntactic and semantic survey shows that these two markers are not synonyms in most contexts

The Indonesian Verbal Suffix –Nya; Nominalization or Subordination?

The suffix ‑nya is one of the most frequent and polysemic suffixes in Indonesian. It can provide definite determination and topicalization. The “Verb‑nya“, which often appears in a topicalized subject Noun Phrase (NP), is generally labelled as a deverbal noun. Nevertheless, many syntactic constraints set it apart from Indonesian deverbal nouns. “Verb‑nya“ must be complemented by a NP, which can easily be reconstructed as a former subject: a sentence is topicalized and thus becomes a noun clause, generally the subject of the main clause Verb Phrase (VP). I argue that “Verb‑nya“ is a subordinate noun clause, almost always conveying causality. This causal noun clause, an innovation in formal written Indonesian (especially in the media), seems to fill a “gap“: the impossibility of beginning a sentence with a subordinating morpheme (‘that', ‘because')

Aspect and Modality in Indonesian the Case of Sudah, Telah, Pernah, and Sempat

In this paper, I describe four Indonesian aspect markers, sudah, telah, pernah, and sempat, showing that the main opposition between them relies not only on their aspectual meanings, but also on the various modalities they express. The opposition between the very frequent markers sudah and telah is analysed in detail. The syntactic and semantic survey shows that these two markers are not synonyms in most contexts

Overweight is associated to a better prognosis in metastatic colorectal cancer: A pooled analysis of FFCD trials

IF 7.191 (2017)International audienceBACKGROUND:Previous studies showed that high and low body mass index (BMI) was associated with worse prognosis in early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC), and low BMI was associated with worse prognosis in metastatic CRC (mCRC). We aimed to assess efficacy outcomes according to BMI.PATIENTS AND METHODS:A pooled analysis of individual data from 2085 patients enrolled in eight FFCD first-line mCRC trials from 1991 to 2013 was performed. Comparisons were made according to the BMI cut-off: Obese (BMI ≥30), overweight patients (BMI ≥ 25), normal BMI patients (BMI: 18.5-24) and thin patients (BMI <18.5). Interaction tests were performed between BMI effect and sex, age and the addition of antiangiogenics to chemotherapy.RESULTS:The rate of BMI ≥25 patients was 41.5%, ranging from 37.6% (1991-1999 period) to 41.5% (2000-2006 period) and 44.8% (2007-2013 period). Comparison of overweight patients versus normal BMI range patients revealed a significant improvement of median overall survival (OS) (18.5 versus 16.3 months, HR = 0.88 [0.80-0.98] p = 0.02) and objective response rate (ORR) (42% versus 36% OR = 1.23 [1.01-1.50] p = 0.04) but a comparable median progression-free survival (PFS) (7.8 versus 7.2 months, HR = 0.96 [0.87-1.05] p = 0.35). Subgroup analyses revealed that overweight was significantly associated with better OS in men. OS and PFS were significantly shorter in thin patients.CONCLUSION:Overweight patients had a prolonged OS compared with normal weight patients with mCRC. The association of overweight with better OS was only observed in men. The pejorative prognosis of BMI <18.5 was confirmed.Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserve

A Bayesian reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial

Background Timing of initiation of kidney-replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients remains controversial. The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial compared two strategies of KRT initiation (accelerated versus standard) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and found neutral results for 90-day all-cause mortality. Probabilistic exploration of the trial endpoints may enable greater understanding of the trial findings. We aimed to perform a reanalysis using a Bayesian framework. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of all 2927 patients randomized in multi-national STARRT-AKI trial, performed at 168 centers in 15 countries. The primary endpoint, 90-day all-cause mortality, was evaluated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. A spectrum of priors includes optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic priors, along with priors informed from earlier clinical trials. Secondary endpoints (KRT-free days and hospital-free days) were assessed using zero–one inflated beta regression. Results The posterior probability of benefit comparing an accelerated versus a standard KRT initiation strategy for the primary endpoint suggested no important difference, regardless of the prior used (absolute difference of 0.13% [95% credible interval [CrI] − 3.30%; 3.40%], − 0.39% [95% CrI − 3.46%; 3.00%], and 0.64% [95% CrI − 2.53%; 3.88%] for neutral, optimistic, and pessimistic priors, respectively). There was a very low probability that the effect size was equal or larger than a consensus-defined minimal clinically important difference. Patients allocated to the accelerated strategy had a lower number of KRT-free days (median absolute difference of − 3.55 days [95% CrI − 6.38; − 0.48]), with a probability that the accelerated strategy was associated with more KRT-free days of 0.008. Hospital-free days were similar between strategies, with the accelerated strategy having a median absolute difference of 0.48 more hospital-free days (95% CrI − 1.87; 2.72) compared with the standard strategy and the probability that the accelerated strategy had more hospital-free days was 0.66. Conclusions In a Bayesian reanalysis of the STARRT-AKI trial, we found very low probability that an accelerated strategy has clinically important benefits compared with the standard strategy. Patients receiving the accelerated strategy probably have fewer days alive and KRT-free. These findings do not support the adoption of an accelerated strategy of KRT initiation