单选题中指脓性指头炎如治疗不及时，最易发生的并发症是

单选题男，55岁，食管癌患者，进食时咳呛，为明确诊断应首选

单选题对呼吸功能障碍者的术前准备，不正确的是

单选题A．PGAB．5－羟色胺C．TNFD．氧自由基E．ADH

单选题雌激素的生理功能不包括下列哪项

单选题增生的腺体显著拥挤，出现背靠背现象，属于子宫内膜增生症的

单选题脂肪移植术后多长时间容易发生脂肪液化

单选题某男性患者，25岁，骑跨伤后尿道口少量滴血，但排尿顺利，3周后，患者出现排尿困难，此时应采取

单选题关于慢性胰腺炎的病理变化下列哪项是正确的

单选题蛛网膜下腔阻滞的并发症

单选题关于胆囊癌的叙述，下列哪项是正确的( )(2003年)

单选题下列选项中，不属于系膜增生性肾小球肾炎病理特点的是

单选题下列哪项不符合高分解代谢性急性肾衰竭

单选题诊断性腹腔穿刺和腹腔灌洗术，在诊断腹部损伤时，其阳性率可达A．90%B．80%C．70%D．60%E．50%

单选题下列关于胆道系统的叙述，错误的是( )(2004年)

单选题肝外胆管结石的特点是

单选题选择性蛋白尿的特点为A．24小时尿蛋白少于150mgB．运动后出现一过性蛋白尿C．每日尿蛋白超过3.5gD．多为白蛋白或更小分子的蛋白质E．多为球蛋白

单选题输血时发生的最常见而严重的传染病是

单选题B型超声扫描诊断胆道疾病，方法上不足之处为

单选题In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to can'y out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound. Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are lull of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher's me, here, now becomes the community's anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point. Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within the complex social structure of the scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. As a discovery claim works it way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual's discovery claim into the community's credible discovery. Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is new-search, not re-search. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Azent-Gy6rgyi once described discovery as "seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought." But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated. In the end, credibility "happens" to a discovery claim—a process that corresponds to what philosopher Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. "We reason together, challenge, revise, and complete each other's reasoning and each other's conceptions of reason./