Similar Questions

How are the findings of biopsy results interpreted?

  • Most biopsies are done to rule out endometrial cancer or endometrial hyperplasia. A normal result shows no cancerous or precancerous cells. Normal results also show that the uterine lining is changing at the proper rate. If it is, then the results of the biopsy are said to be "in-phase" because the tissue looks appropriate and has developed normally for the late phase of the menstrual cycle.
    - Lata Cherath, PhD

Add Comment & Answer


Name: *



Answers and Comments

  • Answer: Most biopsies are done to rule out endometrial cancer or endometrial hyperplasia. A normal result shows no cancerous or precancerous cells. Normal results also show that the uterine lining is changing at the proper rate. If it is, then the results of the biopsy are said to be "in-phase" because the tissue looks appropriate and has developed normally for the late phase of the menstrual cycle.
    - Lata Cherath, PhD
  • Answer: A biopsy can remove the entire target region (excisional biopsy) or can remove just a small portion of the target region (incisional biopsy).
  • Answer: What happens is they have a ultra sound to see where it is exactly and they mark they have a tendency to get more tissue with a needle biopsy they can extract a better piece of tissue sample sometimes they can get the whole tissue sample this way
  • Answer: the supreme court
  • Answer: .The ability of a word to be interpreted in more than one way, isknown as ambiguity.
  • Answer: Positive:
    1. New industries were started because of the new work force.
    2. The middle class developed.

    Negative:
    1. Cities became overcrowded.
    2. Competition for jobs caused a drop in the hourly wage. There was a larger supply of workers than the demand for workers.
  • Answer: There were several positive and negative consequences of theIndustrial Revolution. As far as positive outcomes, the industrialrevolution paved the way for modern industry, and allowed inventorsto use new technologies to create products. On the downside, theearly factories badly polluted the air, and often required workersto do their jobs in horrible safety conditions.
  • Answer: The constitution must be interpreted differently from legislated laws because the constitution was designed to be open to interpretation so that it would remain relevant in our modern world.
  • Answer: Well, I will give you one, and this is my opinion only. Please feel free to read the constitution yourself, especially the bill of rights.

    The second amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment first mentions a militia. In the days of the founding fathers, each state had its own militia, or army. In the early days of our country, we were very afraid of being invaded by England, Spain, and France. We did not have the communications abilities that we had today, so if New York was invaded, they needed to be able to respond before the whole US Army would be able to mobilize. That is why we had militias.


    When we think of a militia like the national guard of today, we realize that yes, back then, citizens needed to arm themselves. They needed to have guns for their own protection, because many of them lived in the woods, or near hostile native tribes. When we think about modern life, the right to bear arms becomes a little more troublesome.


    Today, the definition of arms could mean, rifles, shotguns, handguns, automatic weapons, landmines, grenades, pistols, cannons, missiles. Anything that can shoot a bullet is an arm. Do we really need to have these types of weapons? Back when the 2nd amendment was written, the arms they had available were muskets and single shot rifles. Today, our weapons are much more destructive.


    What it all boils down to is this: Did the founding fathers intend for Americans to have the right to own a machine gun?


    Please feel free to disagree with me if you like. That is the beauty of democracy in America; we are all free to have our own opinions.
  • Answer: You need specify what place and what historical period you are referring to as the arrangements different peoples had and at different times varied. Generally, this was done by some types of judges as they are the ones who issue verdicts in court on the basis of their interpretation of the law. However, this was necessarily always the case. For example, during the Roman Republic, this was often done by the praetor, who was a chief justice.
  • Answer: it ment the right to eat and to have some reward for their labor.
  • Answer: Saints! I hope this is the answer you are looking for.