review1-5d(sd)

合集下载

北师大版-英语-六年级下册-【特约】Unit10 Review1 Lesson1 作业

【特约】Unit10 Review1 Lesson1 作业一．选择。

（）1.______are you ?A.How old.B.How many（）2. ___ are you from?A.WhereB.When（）3. What’s ___ name ? .A. youB.your（）4.Draw the family tree.翻译成汉语是：A. 画家庭关系树B. 拍家庭照（）5.He is my ___.A.auntB.cousin（）6. ___ is your birthday ?A. What timeB.When（）7.February 19th翻译成汉语是：A. 3月19日B. 2月19日（）8. What___ your family members do ?A. doB.does（）9.When is your __ friends biethday ?.A.bestB.well（）10.____ rooms are they in ?A.WhoB.What二．连线。

A组1. What’s your name ? A .My name is Lisa.2. How old are you ? B.I’m from China.3. Where are you from ? C.Chinese.4. What’s your favorite subject ? D. 200-meter race.5. What’s your favorite sport ? E.I’m twelve years old .B组1.This is my family . A. .2.Is this your grandfather ? Yes.he is very old.B.3. Is this your brother ?No.He is my litter uncle. C.4.This girl is my sister . D.5.They’re my mother and me . E.. 三．判断对错。

ieee的under review -回复

ieee的under review -回复题目：电子工程与信息学会（IEEE）的“Under Review”流程解析引言：IEEE（Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers）是世界上最大的专业技术机构之一，拥有广泛的成员基础和影响力。

作为一个学术期刊和会议的出版商，IEEE引领着电子工程和信息学领域的前沿研究。

在投稿的过程中，学者们会遇到“Under Review”的状态，本文将一步一步解析IEEE的“Under Review”流程，帮助读者更好地了解此过程。

一、IEEE的投稿系统IEEE的投稿系统是一个在线平台，为作者提供了方便快捷的投稿渠道。

作者需要在系统中注册账号，并按照提供的指南上传稿件和相关材料。

在提交后，稿件将进入审稿流程。

二、投稿状态变化1. Submitted（已提交）当作者成功上传论文后，稿件的状态将变成“Submitted”，这表示作者的稿件已成功提交到IEEE的投稿系统中。

此时，稿件进入了评审过程的第一阶段。

2. Under Review（评审中）一旦稿件被成功提交，它就会被分配给相应领域的编辑或审稿人进行评审。

在这个阶段，评审人会仔细研读论文，审查其内容的科学性、准确性和创新性，以及符合IEEE期刊或会议的要求。

评审的时间长度会因稿件的复杂性和领域的不同而有所差异。

3. Reviews Received（评审意见已收到）当审稿人完成了对稿件的评审工作后，他们将提交评审意见给编辑。

在这个阶段，作者可以看到有关他们稿件的评审意见和建议。

这些评论通常是匿名的，以保护审稿人的隐私。

编辑将评审意见汇总，并在必要时向作者提供修改意见。

4. Revision Required（需要修改）该状态表示审稿人对稿件提出了一些修改和改进的建议。

作者需要仔细阅读和理解评审意见，并根据其建议进行修改。

修改后的稿件需要再次提交。

5. Under Review（评审中）修改后的稿件需要再次经过评审过程。

肿瘤sd标准-概述说明以及解释

肿瘤sd标准-概述说明以及解释1.引言1.1 概述肿瘤SD标准是一种用于衡量和评估肿瘤病变大小的标准，它是基于影像学数据和临床观察而建立的。

随着现代医学影像技术的不断进步，肿瘤SD标准在肿瘤诊断、治疗和疗效评估方面发挥着重要作用。

本文将探讨肿瘤SD标准的定义和背景、应用和重要性、优势和局限性以及未来发展方向。

通过对肿瘤SD标准的深入了解，我们可以更好地指导临床实践，提高肿瘤患者的治疗效果和生存率。

1.2 文章结构:本文分为引言、正文和结论三部分。

在引言部分，将首先概述本文要探讨的主题——肿瘤SD标准，并介绍文章的结构和目的。

在正文部分，将详细讨论肿瘤SD标准的定义和背景，以及它在临床实践中的应用和重要性。

在结论部分，将总结肿瘤SD标准的优势和局限性，并展望它未来的发展方向。

通过以上结构，希望读者能够全面了解肿瘤SD标准的重要性和未来发展趋势。

1.3 目的肿瘤SD标准的目的是为了规范和标准化肿瘤的诊断、治疗和研究过程。

通过制定统一的标准和流程，可以提高肿瘤患者的诊断准确性和治疗效果，降低误诊率和病死率。

同时，肿瘤SD标准的应用还可以促进不同医疗机构和研究机构之间的信息共享和合作，促进医疗科研水平的提升，为肿瘤患者提供更加全面和优质的医疗服务。

因此，肿瘤SD标准的制定和推广对于提高肿瘤患者的生存质量和延长生存时间具有重要意义。

2.正文2.1 肿瘤SD标准的定义和背景肿瘤SD标准是一种用于评估肿瘤治疗效果的标准化指标系统，全称为Tumor Size and Density标准。

它通过测量肿瘤的大小和密度，提供了客观的量化指标，有助于医生更准确地评估肿瘤的生长和治疗效果。

肿瘤SD标准的背景可以追溯到传统的肿瘤治疗评估方法，通常是通过触诊、影像学检查或手术等方式来判断肿瘤的大小和形态。

然而，这些方法存在主观性和不确定性，且无法提供详细的定量数据。

肿瘤SD标准的出现填补了这一空白，为医生提供了更科学、更精准的肿瘤评估工具。

安徽宣城市初中英语九年级全一册Starter Unit 1知识点总结(含答案解析)

考试范围：xxx；满分：***分；考试时间：100分钟；命题人：xxx 学校：__________ 姓名：__________ 班级：__________ 考号：__________一、选择题1．Whether or not we can have a great success______ our learning habits.A．depends on B．plays a role inC．comes up with D．looks up to2．As teenagers we shouldn't always _________ our parents. We should learn to be independent.A．argue with B．depend on C．learn from D．hear of3．"A white elephant" means something that is useless，_________ it may cost a lot of money. A．unless B．until C．although D．so4．─Could you give me more advice about the restaurants in your city？─Why not _________ on the Internet？A．look for it B．look it for C．look it up D．look up it 5．Nowadays，parents find it difficult _________ with their teenage kids. A．communicate B．communicating C．to communicate D．to communicating 6．_________ we study，_________ our grades will be.A．more hardly；more better B．The more hard；the bestC．The harder；the better D．The more hardly；the better7．My sister was afraid _________ out at night，because she was afraid _________ the dark. A．of going；to B．to go；of C．going；of D．to go；to 8．— My English is very poor. What shall I do?— ________ join the English club?A．What about B．Why don’t C．Why not D．Let’s9．The little boy was born ________ a good memory.A．in B．on C．with D．of10．Tony kept ________ English when he was a boy.A．speak B．speaking C．to speak D．spoke11．—I didn't hear you come in just now.—That's good. We tried________any noise, for you were sleeping.A．not make B．not to make C．to make D．making12．______is unhealthy for us to go to school without eating breakfast in the morning．A．That B．This C．It13．_____________you smile at others, they will smile back.A．If B．So C．Or D．Though 14．—Peter，can you repeat what Tina said just now?—Sorry，I didn't ________ what she said.A．fall in love with B．get on well with C．pay attention to D．look forward to 15．You don’t have to _______ every new word in the dictionary while reading.A．look for B．look up C．look at D．look after 16．The superheroes, such as Spider-Man and Iron Man, ______ by Stan Lee when he was alive. A．are created B．have been created C．will be created D．were created 17．----Mom, this is my homework today.----Good, and you should pay attention to ______ textbooks before doing homework. A．review B．reviewing C．reviewed D．reviews18．For those who had the chance to _________the 70th celebration of the founding of thePeople's Republic of China, it would be a lifelong memory.A．take off B．take part in C．take care of19．Find a partner to practice English_______.A．\ B．for C．to D．with20．The teacher told us that it was a good habit ___ in every class .A．to take notes B．take a noteC．take notes D．to take note21．I often make mistakes ______ grammar.A．in B．on C．at D．with22．From the __________ on his face, I know he did well in ___________ exam. A．express； yesterday B．expressions； today C．expressions；yesterday’s D．expressing；today’s23．——What do you think of Jane? ——She is to be a good teacher.A．patient enough B．too patient C．enough patient D．so patient 24．It’s very convenient ______ us to buy train tickets now because we can buy them either from the station or on the Internet.A．to B．of C．by D．for25．—I got wet this morning.—________. I told you to take an umbrella.A．It takes time B．It's up to you C．It serves you right D．It's a piece of cake 26．The Birdwatching Society goes to Zhalong Nature Reserve the birds every year.A．to count B．counting C．count D．counts【参考答案】一、选择题1．A 2．B 3．C 4．C 5．C 6．C7．B 8．C 9．C 10．B 11．B 12．C 13．A 14．C 15．B 16．D 17．B 18．B 19．D 20．A 21．A 22．C 23．A 24．D 25．C 26．A【参考解析】一、选择题1．A解析：A【详解】句意：我们能否取得巨大成功取决于我们的学习习惯。

胎儿生物学评分

胎儿生物学评分
胎儿生物学评分是用来评估胎儿在母体中生长和发育的指标。

这种评分系统常用于产科医生和助产士检查胎儿健康状况，并判断其适宜的出生时机。

胎儿生物学评分通常由五个方面组成：
1. 心率变异性（Variability of Heart Rate，VHR）：胎儿心率波动的程度，反映了胎儿自主神经系统的功能。

正常的VHR 表明胎儿神经系统发育良好。

2. 胎动次数（Number of Fetal Movements，NFM）：胎儿每小时的胎动次数，体现了胎儿活动性和神经肌肉发育情况。

正常的NFM应该在每小时10次以上。

3. 羊水索引（Amniotic Fluid Index，AFI）：羊水的量和质量的指标，主要用于评估胎盘功能和胎儿生长情况。

正常的AFI 应在5-25cm之间。

4. 胎盘成熟度（Placental Maturity，PM）：胎盘的成熟度是评估胎儿生长发育的重要指标，影响着胎儿获得营养和氧气的能力。

5. 羊水外观（Amniotic Fluid Appearance，AFA）：羊水的颜色和浊度，可以反映胎儿的代谢和肾功能。

正常的AFA应为清澈无色或者淡黄色。

这些指标将综合评估胎儿的生长和发育情况，以便医生和助产士做出判断和建议，保障母亲和胎儿的安全和健康。

MS Project 练习

MS Project EXERCISES 第4章项目范围和进度计划管理Exercise 4.1Using the information provided below, construct a simple WBS table for the project example.Project Outline – Remodeling an ApplianceI Research PhaseII Design and Engineering PhaseIII Testing PhaseIV Manufacturing PhaseV Sales PhaseI Research PhaseA. Prepare product development proposal1) Conduct competitive analysis2) Review field sales reports3) Conduct technological capabilities assessmentB. Develop focus group dataC. Conduct telephone surveysD. Identify relevant specification improvementsII Design and Engineering PhaseA. Interface with Marketing staffB. and so onIII Testing PhaseIV Manufacturing PhaseV Sales PhaseExercise 4.2Consider the following information that you have compiled regarding the steps needed to complete a project. You have identified all relevant steps and have made some determination regarding predecessor/successor relationships. Using MSProject, develop a simple Network diagram for this project, showing the links among the project activities.Activity PredecessorsA – Survey site -B – Install sewer and storm drainage AC – Install gas and electric power lines AD – Excavate site for spec house B, CE – Pour foundation DExercise 4.3Suppose we have a complete activity predecessor table (shown below) and we wish to create a Network diagram highlighting the activity sequence for this project. Using MSProject, enter the activities and their predecessors and create a complete activity Network diagram for this project.Project - Remodeling an ApplianceActivity PredecessorsA. Conduct competitive analysis -B. Review field sales reports -C. Conduct tech capabilities assessment -D. Develop focus group data A, B, CE. Conduct telephone surveys DF. Identify relevant specification improvements EG. Interface with Marketing staff FH. Develop engineering specifications GI. Check and debug designs H J. Develop testing protocol G K. Identify critical performance levels J L. Assess and modify product components I, K M. Conduct capabilities assessment L N. Identify selection criteria M O. Develop RFQ M P. Develop production master schedule N, O Q. Liaison with Sales staff P R. Prepare product launch QExercise 4.4Suppose that we add some duration estimates to each of the activities from exercise 4.2.A portion of the revised table is shown below. Recreate the Network diagram for this project and note how MS Project uses nodes to identify activity durations, start and finish dates, and predecessors. What is the critical path for this network diagram? How do we know?Activity Duration PredecessorsA – Survey site 5 days -B – Install sewer and storm drainage 9 days AC – Install gas and electric power lines 4 days AD – Excavate site for spec house 2 days B, CE – Pour foundation 2 days DProblem 4.5Suppose we have a complete activity predecessor table (shown below) and we wish to create a Network diagram highlighting the activity sequence for this project. Using MSProject, enter the activities, their durations, and their predecessors for Activities A through R. Note that all duration times are in days.Project - Remodeling an Appliance设备的改造Activity Duration PredecessorsA. Conduct competitive analysis 3 -B. Review field sales reports 2 -C. Conduct tech capabilities assessment 5 -D. Develop focus group data 2 A, B, CE. Conduct telephone surveys 3 DF. Identify relevant specification improvements 3 EG. Interface with Marketing staff 1 FH. Develop engineering specifications 5 GI. Check and debug designs 4 HJ. Develop testing protocol 3 GK. Identify critical performance levels 2 JL. Assess and modify product components 6 I, KM. Conduct capabilities assessment 12 LN. Identify selection criteria 3 MO. Develop RFQ 4 MP. Develop production master schedule 5 N, OQ. Liaison with Sales staff 1 PR. Prepare product launch 3 QProblem 4.6Now, continue developing your Gantt chart with the rest of the information contained in the table above and create a complete activity Network diagram for this project.Problem 4.7Identify the critical path for this project. How can you tell? (Hint: Click on the “Tracking Gantt” option.)Problem 4.8Suppose that we wished to incorporate lag relationships into our activity network. Consider the table shown below and the lag relationships noted. Develop an MS Project Gantt chart that demonstrates these lags.Activity Duration Predecessor RelationshipA. Wiring 6 NoneB. Plumbing 2 NoneC. HVAC 3 Wiring (Finish-to-Start),Plumbing (Finish-to-Finish)D. Interior construction 6 HVAC (Start-to-Start)第5章项目资源管理Problem 5.1Refer to the activity network table below. Enter this information using MSProject in order to produce a Gantt chart. Assume that each resource has been assigned to the project activity on a full-time basis.Activity Duration Predecessors Resource AssignedA. User survey 4 None Gail WilkinsB. Coding 12 A Tom HodgesC. Debug 5 B Wilson PittsD. Design interface 6 A, C Sue RyanE. Develop training 5 D Reed TaylorProblem 5.2Using the above information, produce a Resource Usage sheet, identifying the total number of hours and daily commitments of each project team member.Problem 5.3Refer to the activity network table below. Suppose that we modified the original table slightly to show the following predecessor relationships between tasks and resources assigned to perform these activities. Enter this information using MSProject in order to produce a Gantt chart. Assume that each resource has been assigned to the project activity on a full-time basis.Activity Duration Predecessors Resource AssignedA. User survey 4 None Gail WilkinsB. Coding 12 A Tom HodgesC. Debug 5 A Tom HodgesD. Design interface 6 B, C Sue RyanE. Develop training 5 D Reed TaylorUsing the Resource Usage view, can you determine any warning signs that some member of the project team has been overassigned to the project team?Click on the Resource Graph view to determine the specific days when there is a conflict in the resource assignment schedule.Problem 5.4Using the information provided in problem 12.3 above, how might you resource level this network to remove the conflicts? Show how you would resource level the network. From a schedule perspective, what is the new duration of the project?第9章项目的跟踪与监控Problem 9.1Using the following data, enter the various tasks and create a Gantt chart using MS Project. Assign the individuals responsible for each activity and once you have completed the network, update it with the percentage complete tool. What does the MS Project output file look like?Activity Duration Predecessors Resource % completeA. Research product 6 - Tom Allen 100B. Interview customers 4 A Liz Watts 75C. Design Survey 5 A Rich Watkins 50D. Collect Data 4 B, C Gary Sims 0Problem 9.2Now, suppose we assign costs to each of the resources in the following amounts:Resource CostTom Allen $50/hourLiz Watts $55/hourRich Watkins $18/hourGary Sims $12.50/houra. Create the resource usage statement for the project as of the most recent update. What are project expenses per task to date?Problem 9.3Use MSProject to create a Project Summary Report of the most recent project status.Problem 9.4Using the data shown in the network precedence table below, enter the various tasks onto MSProject. Then select a date approximately halfway through the overall project duration and update all tasks in the network to show current status. You may assume that all tasks in the first half of the project are now 100% completed. What does the Tracking Gantt look like?Project - Remodeling an ApplianceActivity Duration PredecessorsA. Conduct competitive analysis 3 -B. Review field sales reports 2 -C. Conduct tech capabilities assessment 5 -D. Develop focus group data 2 A, B, CE. Conduct telephone surveys 3 DF. Identify relevant specification improvements 3 EG. Interface with Marketing staff 1 FH. Develop engineering specifications 5 GI. Check and debug designs 4 HJ. Develop testing protocol 3 GK. Identify critical performance levels 2 JL. Assess and modify product components 6 I, K M. Conduct capabilities assessment 12 LN. Identify selection criteria 3 MO. Develop RFQ 4 MP. Develop production master schedule 5 N, O Q. Liaison with Sales staff 1 PR. Prepare product launch 3 Q。

ScopeofReview

Civ Pro I, §B MaranvilleScope of ReviewDistinguishing Law & FactFor each of the following questions, consider the issue as it arises in the trial court. Indicate 1) whether the question is one of law, fact, or application of law to fact, 2) whether the issue would be decided in the district court by a judge or a jury, if a jury trial were requested and 3) what standard of review an appellate court would apply in reviewing the decision.Q.1. Mas v. Perry, p. 230. Did landlord Perry install two-way mirrors in the Mas’s apartment?A. 1) Question of fact (what happened)2) Rule: Questions of fact are for the jury.Application: What Perry did is a question of fact for the jury.3) Rule: Appellate court reviews jury findings by reviewing thegrant/denial of a motion for a judgment as a matter of law (directed verdictor JNOV) to determine whether the case could properly be submitted tothe jury. In bench trial, appellate court would review the trial judge’sfindings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard.Q.2. Mas v. Perry, p. 230. Where does Judy Mas currently reside?A. 1) Question of fact2) Rule: Questions of fact concerning the merits of the substantive claimare for the jury. However, the trial judge decides the facts necessary forrulings on preliminary motions. Typically, the facts are submitted to thejudge in writing by means of affidavits/declarations, but the court my takeoral testimony, if appropriate. See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice &Procedure, §1373. 3) See previous question.Q.3. Mas v. Perry, p. 230. What is Judy Mas’s state citizenship at the time the lawsuit was filed?A. 1) This question can only be decided by applying the legal standard (therules for determining citizenship) to the facts. Thus, it fits in theapplication of law to fact category.2) Rule: Some application of law to fact decisions are considereddecisions for the jury. The classic one is whether undisputed factsconstitute negligence. Other applications of law to fact are viewed aslegal questions for the judge.Application. The question of state citizenship . . .3) See previous question. If decided by the judge, this question would bereviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.Q. 4. Mas v. Perry, p. 230. Does the federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction over the Mases’ lawsuit?A. 1) Question of law 2) Decided by judge3) Rule: Trial court conclusions of law receive no deference from theappellate court and are reviewed de novoApplication. SMJ is a question of law that will be reviewed de novo bythe appellate courtQ.5. Mas v. Perry, p. 230. Should Mas’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be granted?A. This is another way of asking the previous question. Same answers.Q.6. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, p. 119. What contacts does World-Wide Volkswagen have with the state of Oklahoma?A. 1) Probably a question of fact, though could be application of law to fact if thequestion of w hat activities “count” as contacts involves applying a legal standard.2)3) See answers to questions 2 & 3.Q.7. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, p. 119. Does World-Wide Volkswagen have “minimum contacts” with the state of Oklahoma?A. 1) Ap plication of legal standard (“minimum contacts”) to facts of case2) See answer to questions 3, but this one would be treated as a questionof law. 3) Appellate review would be “de novo”Q.8. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, p. 119. May the trial court exercise personal jurisdiction over World-Wide Volkswagen consistently with the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution?A. Legal question, reviewable de novo(See answer to question 4)Q.9. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, p. 119. Should the court grant defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction?A. Legal question, reviewable de novo(See answer to question 5)Q. 10. Hanna v. Plumer, p. 284. Should the service of process requirements of federal or state law apply in this case?A. Legal question, reviewable de novo(See answer to question 4)Q. 11. Haddle v. Garrison, p. 417. Should the court grant defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim?A. Legal question, reviewable de novo(See answer to question 4)Q.12. Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell, p. 587. Are plaintiff’s interrogatories relevant to the subject matter of the action?A. Relevance is a legal question, reviewable de novo(See answer to question 4) Q.13. Freiman v. USAIR Group, Inc., p. 536, note 5c. Why would the film and investigator’s report be important to the plaintiff?A. Probably a question of fact. See answer to question 2.Q.14. Freiman v. USAIR Group, Inc., p. 536, note 5c. Does plaintiff hav e “substantial need” for the film and investigator’s report?A. Probably application of law to fact, see question 3.Q.15. Freiman v. USAIR Group, Inc., p. 536, note 5c. Should plaintiff’s motion to compel be granted?A. 1) Trick question. Thi s is a matter “within the sound discretion of thetrial court. 2) Decided by the judge3) Reviewable by the appellate court for “abuse of discretion”Q.16. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., p. 549. Were the Chudasamas’requests for production of documents relevant?A. Relevance is a legal question, reviewable de novo(See answer to question 4) Q. 17. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., p. 549. Did Mazda file answers to the Chudasamas’ discovery requests?A. Question of fact, decided by judge, reviewable under clearly erroneousstandard.. See answer to question 2Q. 18. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., p. 549. Did the trial court properly impose sanctions on Mazda?A. Again, a matter “within the sound discretion of the trial court, decided byth e judge, reviewable by the appellate court for “abuse of discretion. Seequestion 15.Q. 19. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, p. 630. Was Mr. Catrett exposed to asbestos produced by Celotex?A. Question of fact, goes to jury if parties meet their burdens of production. Seequestion 1Q. 20. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, p. 630. Is there a genuine issue of material fact in this case?A. Question of law, decided by judge, reviewable de novo. See question 4.Q. 21. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, p. 630. If there is no genuine issue of material fact, are defendants entitled to judgment as a matter of law?A. Question of law, decided by judge, reviewable de novo.Q. 22. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, p. 630. Should defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted?A. This is the previous two questions combined. Same answer.Q. 23. Reid v. San Pedro, etc., p. 713. How did the plaintiff’s cattle get on the defendant’s right of way?A . Question of fact, goes to jury if parties meet their burdens of prod uction. Seequestion 1 on reviewability..Q. 24. Reid v. San Pedro, etc., p. 713. Was the jury’s verdict supported by the evidence?A. Question of law, decided by judge, reviewable de novo.Q. 25. In re Beverly Hills Fire Litigation, p. 732 and 749. Did a juror perform home experiments on aluminum electrical wiring?A. Question of fact, decided by judge, reviewable under clearly erroneousstandard.. See answer to question 2Q. 26. In re Beverly Hills Fire Litigation, p. 732 and 749. Should the court grant a motion for a new trial?A. Again, a matter “within the sound discretion of the trial court, decided bythe judge, reviewable by the appellate court for “abuse of discretion. Seequestion 15. Note that where the appellate court believes that the trialcourt misunderstood the applicable legal standard, it will typically findabuse of discretion.。

ReviewofUnit1

仁爱科普2011版九年级上册福建省龙岩市连城县冠豸中学主讲教师：杨晓霞指导教师：江晓蓉
Have you ever seen the film?
What tense （时态）is it? Present Perfect Tense 现在完成时
Study the examples and complete the table.
continue to the present. (动作或状态从过去持续到现在甚至将来)
Look at the followinLgoseonkteanctetsh: e
• I have never been to Beijing. • I have already been to Beijing. • I haven't been to Beijing yet. • I have just been to Beijing. • I have never been to Beijing so far. • 现在完成时关键词有：never,already,yet
— Jim _____ up all the apples, so I have nothing to eat.
√A. has eaten B. eat C. ate
,just, so far，recently，before等等。
• already用于__肯___定__句__/_陈__述___句_
• yet 用于_否__定__句__和__疑__问__句__句__末___
Simple Past VS Present Perfect It _w__a_s_ (be) beautiful in the past. Kangkang __w__e_n_t_ (go) there two years ago.

肿瘤治疗疗效常用的评价观察指标

客观缓解率
客观缓解率是指肿瘤体积缩小达到预先规定值的患者比例。它反映了治疗对肿瘤的直接效果。
患者自我报告结局评价标准
健康状况
通过患者自我报告的健康状况，可以了解治疗对患者生活质量的影响。健康状况改善通常表示治疗对患者有益。
疲劳程度
疲劳是肿瘤患者常见的症状之一，通过评估患者的疲劳程度可以了解治疗对患者的影响。疲劳减轻表示治疗对患者有益。
从治疗开始至疾病复发或进展的时间。
总生存期（OS）
从治疗开始至死亡的时间。
02
RECIST评价标准
靶病灶的评价
01
02
03
靶病灶的基线测量
在开始治疗之前，对所有靶病灶进行精确的测量，包括大小和数量，作为基线水平。
靶病灶的治疗反应
根据治疗期间靶病灶的变化，将治疗反应分为四类：完全缓解、部分缓解、疾病稳定和疾病进展。
肿瘤标志物水平与肿瘤大小、浸润深度及淋巴结转移情况等病理学指标相关，可反映肿瘤负荷大小。
肿瘤标志物水平升高提示肿瘤负荷增加，病情恶化，反之则提示病情缓解。
血清肿瘤标志物与患者预后的相关性
肿瘤标志物水平与患者预后密切相关，高水平表达往往提示预后不良。
VS
通过监测血清肿瘤标志物水平的变化，可评估治疗效果和预测患者预后。
PET-CT检查评价
总结词
PET-CT检查是一种功能与解剖影像相结合的检查方法，可评价肿瘤的生长代谢情况和治疗效果。
详细描述
PET-CT检查通过示踪剂正电子发射断层扫描技术，能够反映肿瘤内部的细胞代谢情况。对于恶性肿瘤，PET-CT检查可显示肿瘤的糖代谢异常增高。通过治疗后复查 PET-CT检查，可观察肿瘤细胞的代谢变化情况，从而对治疗效果进行评估。

Review-重点之重点

靶组织
游离结合
其它组织游离结合
药物
(yàowù)
吸收
游离型药物(yàowù)
血液循环
排泄
结合型药物
代谢物
生物转化
(shēnɡ wù zhuǎn huà)
第十二页，共一百二十五页。
二、药物吸收（Absorption of Drug）： ** 指药物从给药位点进入血液(xuèyè)的过程。 ** 药物吸收速率和吸收率：主要取决于
２. 药物吸收速率： ** ⑴. 治疗窗（therapeutic window）:
即MSC 与 MEC 之间的范围—安全(ānquán)治疗范围
**治疗指数(TI)： TI = LD50/ED50 药物安全性参数之一：LD50/ED50，LD5/ED95 安全范围： LD5与ED95之间的距离。
⑵.药物理化性质(成盐性、极性、电荷)；化学稳定性(penicillin G; insulin)
⑶.药物溶出度，崩解度； **⑷.制剂处方及工艺；
⑸.环境pH； ⑹.食物； ⑺.肠蠕动；种族差异(chāyì)、年龄、健康状态。
第二十四页，共一百二十五页。
2、binding of drugs to plasma protein **药物通常与血浆(xuèjiāng)白蛋白可逆结合，
2． G蛋白偶联受体（GPCR） : 最多。 3．具有酪氨酸激酶(jīméi)活性的受体。 4．细胞内受体（胞浆，核内）。
第五页，共一百二十五页。
受体上调或下调：
up-regulated or down-regulated。
受体数量（密度）升高10%，药效增强100% ①受体上调（增敏作用(zuòyòng)）：
即非离子型药物浓度是离子型的100倍。使其

肿瘤ned评估标准

肿瘤疗效评价按照RECIST 1.1分为四个等级：完全缓解（CR），部分缓解（PR），疾病稳定（SD），疾病进展（PD）。

肿瘤疾病部位评价必须采用与基线相同的方法，包括一致进行增强和及时的扫描。

如需变化，必须与放射学医师讨论该病例以明确是否可能用替代法。

如不能，以后的客观状况为不明确。

1、靶病灶评估：CR：所有靶病灶消失，全部病理淋巴结(包括靶结节和非靶结节)短直径必须减少至＜10 mm。

PR：靶病灶直径之和比基线水平减少至少30%。

PD：以整个实验研究过程中所有测量的靶病灶直径之和的最小值为参照，直径和相对增加至少20%（如果基线测量值最小就以基线值为参照）；除此之外，必须满足直径和的绝对值增加至少5 mm（出现一个或多个新病灶也视为疾病进展）。

SD：靶病灶减小的程度没达到PR，增加的程度也没达到PD水平，介于两者之间，研究时可以直径之和的最小值作为参考。

不确定：未记录进展，且1个或以上可测量的目标病灶未评价，或所用评价方法与基线不一致，或1个或以上目标病灶不能准确测量，或1个或以上目标病灶被切除或辐射，且未复发或增大。

2、非靶病灶：CR：所有非靶病灶消失或肿瘤标志物水平正常。

所有淋巴结大小必须正常（短轴＜10 mm）。

非CR/非PD：任何非靶病灶持续存在和/肿瘤标志物水平高于正常上限。

PD：原非靶病灶已有明确进展。

不明确：未测量进展，1个或以上非靶病灶部位未评价或评价方法与基线所用方法不一致。

3、新病灶：出现任何新发明确的恶性肿瘤病灶都表明PD。

如果新病灶不明确，例如由于体积较小，进一步评价会明确病因。

如果重复评价明确病灶，那么应在首次评价日期记录进展。

在以前未扫描区发现的病灶被认为是新病灶。

4、补充研究：如果明确CR取决于体积减小但未完全消失的残留病灶，建议活检或细针抽吸残留病灶进行研究。

如未发现疾病，主观状况记录为CR。

如果明确进展取决于可能由于坏死增大的病灶，那么病灶应活检或细针抽吸以明确病理状态。

A review of archival auditing research

A review of archival auditing research$Mark DeFond a,n,Jieying Zhang ba University of Southern California,USAb University of Texas,Dallas,USAa r t i c l e i n f oAvailable online28September2014Keywords:AuditingAudit qualityAudit quality proxiesAudit quality modelsAuditor incentivesClient incentivesCompetenciesFinancial reporting qualityJEL classification:M40M42C42a b s t r a c tWe define higher audit quality as greater assurance of high financial reporting quality.Researchers use many proxies for audit quality,with little guidance on choosing amongthem.We provide a framework for systematically evaluating their unique strengths andweaknesses.Because it is inextricably intertwined with financial reporting quality,auditquality also depends on firms’innate characteristics and financial reporting systems.Ourreview of the models commonly used to disentangle these constructs suggests the needfor better conceptual guidance.Finally,we urge more research on the role of auditor andclient competency in driving audit quality.&2014The Authors.Published by Elsevier B.V.This is an open access article under the CCBY-NC-ND license(/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).1.IntroductionAuditing is valued for its ability to provide independent assurance of the credibility of accounting information,which improves resource allocation and contracting efficiency.The growing complexity of business transactions and accounting standards increases auditing’s potential to add value.In recent years,changes of unprecedented magnitude have fundamentally altered the audit market landscape for both auditors and their clients.For the first time in history the public accounting profession in the US is under direct government regulation.The result is a sea change in the supply and demand dynamics of the audit markets,and a surge in research that seeks to better understand the drivers of audit quality.The purpose of our review is to summarize and critique the recent auditing research,and to provide direction for future research.The archival auditing research empirically addresses auditing-related questions,predominantly using economics-based methods of inquiry and analysis.We limit our review to this literature because it is a burgeoning line of research and because we are constrained by our expertise.We do not systematically review the auditing research that draws its inferences from experiments, surveys,or theory.Our goal is to identify the fundamental questions being addressed,what we have learned,inherent problems with the literature,and what needs to be learned going forward.Our target audience is accounting researchers and Ph.D.studentsContents lists available at ScienceDirectjournal homepage:/locate/jaeJournal of Accounting and Economics/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.0020165-4101/&2014The Authors.Published by Elsevier B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).☆This paper was presented at the2013Journal of Accounting and Economics conference.We are grateful to Jerry Zimmerman(editor)for his guidance, and to John Donovan,Richard Frankel,Josh Lee,Xiumin Martin,and Hojun Seo for their insightful discussion.We appreciate the comments and suggestions provided by Joseph Carcello,Jere Francis,Ronen Gal-Orr,Mingyi Hung,Clive Lennox,Inder Kahruna,Elaine Mauldin,Nate Newton,Kannan Raghunandan, Roger Simnett,Mike Stein,Meng Yan,Mike Willenborg,JAE conference participants,and workshop participants at Chinese University of Hong Kong,Boston College,Northeastern University,and the University of Missouri.We thank Karen Ton for her excellent researchassistance.n Corresponding author.Journal of Accounting and Economics58(2014)275–326with a general interest in understanding the auditing literature,and auditing researchers interested in an economics-based review of the archival literature.Consequently,we limit the scope of our review primarily to studies published in the major general interest accounting journals.We also restrict our review primarily to studies that are published from 1996through mid 2013in order to focus on recent developments in the literature.1We organize our review around an economics-based framework that examines the supply and demand forces that shape the audit market.A dominant feature of the literature we review is its primary focus on audit quality.As a result,we structure our discussion around the following four questions:(1)What is audit quality?(2)What drives client demand for audit quality?(3)What drives auditor supply of audit quality?and (4)What are the regulators ’concerns about audit quality?We characterize the demand for audit quality as a function of client incentives and competencies,and the supply of audit quality as a function of auditor incentives and competencies.We separately examine regulators ’concerns because of the profound nature of the recent regulatory changes in the US audit markets and the large volume of research motivated by these changes.2Table 1provides an outline of our review.3Our first set of observations comes from considering the question “What is audit quality?”We observe that most of the commonly used definitions of audit quality portray auditing as a binary process,whereby auditors either succeed or fail in detecting GAAP violations.In contrast,we argue that auditors'responsibilities extend well beyond the simple detection of “black and white ”GAAP violations,to providing assurance of financial reporting quality.This responsibility arises from professional auditing standards that require auditors to consider “the quality,not just the acceptability ”of the client ’s financial reporting (SAS 90).It is further reflected in the audit opinion,which provides assurance that the “financial statements are fairly presented in accordance with GAAP,”since fair presentation requires faithful representation of the firm ’s underlying economics (FASB,1980,SFAC No.2).The auditor ’s broad charge to consider financial reporting quality is also consistent with court rulings that hold auditors liable for misleading financial statements even when those statements strictly comply with GAAP.Collectively,these arguments suggest that audit quality is a continuous construct that assures financial reporting quality,with high quality auditing providing greater assurance of high quality financial reporting.Audit quality improves financial reporting quality by increasing the credibility of the financial reports.Thus,audit quality is a component of financial reporting quality.While difficult to define,financial reporting quality is also determined by the firm ’s financial reporting system,which maps its underlying economics into the financial reports;and the firm ’s innate characteristics,which determine its underlying economics.Together,the firm ’s financial reporting system and innate characteristics affect the quality of the pre-audited financial statements,which constrain the achievable level of financial reporting quality.Accordingly,we define higher audit quality as “greater assurance that the financial statements faithfully reflect the firm ’s underlying economics,conditioned on its financial reporting system and innate characteristics.”We also observe that while the literature uses a large number of proxies to measure audit quality,there is no consensus on which measures are best,and little guidance on how to evaluate them.To address this issue,we draw on the perspective we gain from our review to provide a framework for choosing among and interpreting the commonly used proxies.We first note that the proxies fall into two inherently different groups;outputs of the audit process,such as auditors ’going-concern (GC)opinions,and inputs to the audit process,such as auditor size.We further classify the output-based measures into four categories –material misstatements,auditor communication,financial reporting quality,and perceptions;and the input-based measures into two categories –auditor characteristics and auditor –client contracting features (such as audit fees).We then identify several dimensions that characterize each category's unique strengths and weaknesses.One dimension is how directly the auditor influences the proxies in each category.Material misstatements,for example,are directly under the auditor ’s influence,while perception-based measures,such as the cost of capital,are a longer walk.Another dimension is whether the proxies capture relatively more egregious audit failures,such as material misstatements,or relatively less egregious earnings management,such as measured by high discretionary accruals (DAC).Yet another dimension is whether the proxies capture actual or perceived audit quality,where proxies such as earnings response coefficients (ERCs)capture perceived quality,and measures such as restatements capture actual quality.Finally,we evaluate the proxies based on measurement issues,such as whether measurement error is particularly problematic.Based on our evaluation of these dimensions,we conclude that no single category paints a complete picture of audit quality.We therefore recommend that when possible,researchers use multiple proxies from different categories to take advantage of their strengths and attenuate their weaknesses.4However,because the proxies in each category reflect different dimensions of audit quality,we do not necessarily expect agreement across categories.For example,while a given threat to audit quality may lead to within-GAAP earnings management,as proxied by benchmark beating,it may not rise to1We focus our review on the major studies that exemplify trends in the literature,and do not necessarily include every study published during this time period.2While the literature focuses primarily on audit quality,it also examines the audit process and audit efficiency.Most of these studies,however,still have implications for audit quality.For reviews of the audit quality research from a different perspective than ours,see Francis (2004,2011)and Knechel et al.(2013).3We thank Donovan et al.(2014)for pointing out the inter-relatedness of our demand and supply factors.We classify papers based on demand and supply factors because it is a useful technique for grounding our review in a structured economic framework,and do not mean to oversimplify the complex interactive nature of audit markets.4We emphasize,however,that we do not recommend triangulating across all proxies,because it is neither practical nor desirable.Rather,we suggest comparing measures across the broad categories,which are few in number.M.DeFond,J.Zhang /Journal of Accounting and Economics 58(2014)275–326276M.DeFond,J.Zhang/Journal of Accounting and Economics58(2014)275–326277Table1Table of contents.SectionIntroduction1What is audit quality?2 Defining audit quality 2.1 The relation between audit quality and financial reporting quality 2.2 Measuring audit quality 2.3 Output-based audit quality measures 2.3.1 Input-based audit quality measures 2.3.2 Commonly used audit quality models 2.3.3 Which audit quality measures are best? 2.3.4What drives client demand for audit quality?3 The demand for auditing–does auditing add value? 3.1 Evidence from audited versus unaudited financial information 3.1.1 Evidence from auditor communication 3.1.2 Critique and future research on the value of auditing 3.1.3 What drives client demand for audit quality? 3.2 Client incentives to demand high audit quality 3.2.1 Client competencies to fulfill their audit quality demands 3.2.2 Critique and future research on the demand for audit quality 3.2.3What drives auditor supply of audit quality?4 Auditor incentives to supply high audit quality 4.1 Reputation risk 4.1.1 Litigation risk 4.1.2 Auditor incentives captured by auditor size 4.1.3 Auditor competencies to deliver high audit quality 4.2 Evidence from auditor industry specialization 4.2.1 Evidence from auditor office size 4.2.2 Evidence from the audit process 4.2.3 Institutions and other factors 4.3 Critique and future research on what drives auditor supply of audit quality 4.4What are the regulators’concerns about audit quality?5 What are the effects of regulatory intervention? 5.1 The effects of pre-SOX regulation 5.1.1 The overall effects of SOX 5.1.2 SOX provisions that intervene the demand for audit quality 5.1.3 SOX provisions that intervene the supply of audit quality 5.1.4 Regulatory concerns about perceived threats to auditor independence 5.2 Perceived threats to auditor independence–client demand-side factors 5.2.1 Perceived threats to auditor independence–auditor supply-side factors 5.2.2 Critique and future research on regulators’concerns about audit quality 5.3 Conclusion6the level of an egregious audit failure,as proxied by a restatement.Thus,we urge researchers to articulate the inferences that can and cannot be drawn from the proxies they employ,which is currently missing from much of the literature.Because it is inextricably intertwined with financial reporting quality,audit quality also depends on firms’innate characteristics and financial reporting systems.Therefore,it is critically important for empirical models of audit quality to disentangle these constructs.The existing models have evolved empirically in the absence of strong theoretical guidance, and are unlikely to fully control for firms’innate characteristics and financial reporting systems.This suggests that the treatment effects identified in some of the existing models may be attributable to these underlying constructs.Going forward,future research would benefit from more theoretical guidance on disentangling the complex relation between audit quality and financial reporting quality.Our second set of observations is based on our review of the literature that examines the client’s demand for audit quality.We begin by examining studies that address a fundamental question that precedes virtually all other research in this review:does auditing add value?This literature finds for example,that clients who voluntarily choose to be audited reduce their cost of capital,consistent with auditing reducing information risk.5Also,GC opinions and auditor changes inform stock prices.However,given the strong priors,it is not surprising that financial statement audits add value,and thus it is unlikely5Donovan et al.(2014)conclude that analysts are uninterested in audit quality variation,based on evidence from a search of the term“audit”in conference calls and analyst reports.We believe their analysis is too limited to draw such a strong conclusion,and that it omits compelling evidence to the contrary.For example,the Institute of Certified Financial Analysts(ICFA),representing over10,000professionals,has filed comment letters that strongly support the PCAOB’s proposal to increase disclosure by auditors(/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket034/143.pdf).Further,an ICFA survey of its members finds that“72percent of respondents said the auditor's report is important to their analysis and use of financial reports in the investment decision making process”and“72percent would like to see information on circumstances or relationships that might bear on the auditor’s independence”(/Survey/independent_auditors_report_survey_results.pdf).Collectively,we believe this evidence is consistent with analysts having an interest in audit quality variation.that future research will make significant new discoveries without venturing into new territory.Going forward,assurance services are rapidly expanding beyond traditional financial statement audits,as evidenced by the recent growth in voluntary “sustainability ”audits.This raises many unanswered questions,such as whether assurance of non-financial information adds value,whether auditors ’incentives and competencies transfer to non-financial settings,and what audit quality means in these settings.Also,a recently proposed US auditing standard requires auditors to discuss “critical audit matters ”and disclose information on auditor tenure and independence,and international standard setters are considering similar innovations.Expanding beyond the current boilerplate audit opinion will doubtlessly open up new avenues for further research.We next examine studies exploring the client's demand for audit quality.Theory suggests that agency costs drive this demand,and while measuring agency costs is challenging,researchers identify innovative settings to test this theory.While this literature generally finds support,it is relatively small.We posit that the demand for audit quality is also a function of client competency,which refers to the client's ability to achieve its desired level of audit quality.Motivated by the significant demand-side changes imposed by SOX,research on client competency is one of the fastest growing areas we review.This research finds strong evidence that independent and expert audit committees choose higher quality audit inputs,such as hiring industry specialist auditors;and achieve higher quality audit outcomes,such as fewer restatements and lower DAC.However,the literature that narrowly focuses on SOX-related competencies is fairly saturated.To make further progress,researchers need to explore what audit committees actually do.For example,we know nothing about how committees affect pre-audited financial statement quality,or how they interact with external auditors.We also know little about other client competencies.For example,research on the internal audit function (IAF)is still in its infancy.Interesting questions include whether IAF substitutes or complements the external audit function,and whether outsourcing IAF impairs or improves audit quality.Given the increased interest in demand-side factors,and the limited evidence,we call for more research on how clients'competencies help fulfill their demand for audit quality.Our third set of observations is based on our review of the literature that investigates the auditor ’s supply of audit quality.Theory suggests that the supply of audit quality is a function of the auditor ’s independence and competency,where independence arises from reputation and litigation incentives,and competency refers to the ability to deliver high audit quality.This research finds that damaged reputation from extreme audit failures reduces client market value and the auditor's ability to retain clients.However,this research is based exclusively on rare events and does not link reputation to actual audit quality.In addition,the US evidence is confounded by litigation risk.Thus,despite strong priors,it is unsettled whether reputation concerns improve audit quality,especially in the US.The research on auditor litigation finds strong evidence that auditors engage in a variety of strategies to mitigate litigation risk,such as charging higher fees,increasing GC opinions,reducing DAC,shedding riskier clients,and lobbying for litigation relief.We observe,however,that clear evidence on whether these strategies translate into improved audit quality is elusive.For example,while a large array of risk factors are priced in audit fees,most studies are unable to distinguish whether higher fees are due to more audit effort (consistent with higher audit quality),or simply a risk premium (which is a deadweight loss).Similarly,while increased GCs and reduced DAC are consistent with higher audit quality,they are also consistent with excessively conservative auditors seeking to avoid litigation,which impairs audit quality.Thus,given the strong theoretical prediction that reputation and litigation risk improves audit quality,we are surprised that the evidence is not more conclusive.Going forward,a potentially fruitful area is to more firmly establish whether reputation and litigation risk actually translates into higher audit quality.Auditor size,as captured by Big N membership,is often argued to capture stronger auditor incentives,because reputation costs increase with size,and because larger auditors ’“deep pockets ”make them a target for litigation.Big N research is one of the most thoroughly researched areas in the literature,and provides a mountain of evidence that Big N auditors deliver higher quality as captured by a long list of proxies that span multiple categories of audit quality.Thus,the Big N literature is fairly mature.Going forward,however,more evidence is required to resolve the unsettled question of whether Big N quality differentiation is actually driven by self-selection.We also encourage future researchers to focus less on whether Big N improves audit quality,and more on why .In particular,in addition to stronger incentives,Big N auditors also have greater competency in delivering high audit quality,due to advantages such as their ability to attract higher quality inputs.Current research,however,does little to disentangle the effects of incentives from the effects of competency.We therefore encourage more research that investigates the effects of Big N competencies on audit quality.While more limited than the research on auditor incentives,research on auditor competencies finds that they improve audit quality,particularly industry specialization and Big N office size.However,auditor competency encompasses many other dimensions,which are currently under-researched.Going forward,we encourage more research on these other dimensions,such as the traits of individual auditors,audit firm ownership structure,audit quality control systems,and compensation schemes.We also believe it is valuable to study what auditors actually do by examining features of the audit process,such as professional skepticism.While field studies,surveys,and experiments have comparative advantages in audit process research,we encourage archival researchers to use creative settings and research designs to open up the “black box.”Overall,we call for more research on the role of auditors ’competencies in driving audit quality.Our fourth set of observations comes from our review of the research that explores regulators ’concerns about audit quality,an area that has mushroomed in recent years and represents the single largest area we review.Most of this literature is motivated by the passage of SOX.6Studies that examine the overall effects of SOX find ambiguous results.This is probably6Similar legislation,such as IFIAR and CLERP9,motivated international auditing research.M.DeFond,J.Zhang /Journal of Accounting and Economics 58(2014)275–326278M.DeFond,J.Zhang/Journal of Accounting and Economics58(2014)275–326279 not surprising given the number of levers SOX pulls,and the difficulty in predicting how each lever may affect audit quality. Studies examining individual SOX provisions,however,are more definitive but also more nuanced.These studies find that regulatory intervention may improve audit quality,but only in limited settings,and that in some settings it may impair quality.For example,audit committee provisions increase audit quality,and adverse Section404audit opinions trigger subsequent improvements in monitoring.However,banning non-audit services(NAS)does not seem to affect audit quality, and tax-related NAS actually improves it.In addition,studies examining potential threats to auditor independence find little evidence that they impair audit quality.For example,long auditor-tenure and larger clients actually improve audit quality, contrary to regulators'long-held concerns.We observe that threats to audit quality typically present a tradeoff between auditor independence and competency.For example,while long tenure breeds familiarity that threatens auditor independence,it also increases client-specific knowledge.Thus,finding that these threats do not impair audit quality, and even improve it in some cases,is consistent with auditor competencies playing an important role in explaining audit quality.We conclude that it is premature to draw definitive conclusions from the SOX literature.Much of this research is conducted during a relatively turbulent period when SOX is newly implemented,while the effects of SOX may be realized slowly over time.It is also difficult to evaluate the net benefits of regulatory change,because it is difficult to gauge the related costs.Therefore,the social welfare implications are unclear.In addition,regulatory intervention,such as PCAOB inspections,exacerbates the auditor's exposure to litigation and reputation risk by providing additional opportunities for auditor litigation and increasing reputation losses.Thus,a major challenge is disentangling regulatory intervention from litigation and reputation risk.Going forward,significant changes in the auditing environment highlight the importance of research aimed at better understanding the effects of regulatory intervention.7Prior to SOX,regulatory intervention was infrequent and incremental, and typically resulted in new rules that focused on increasing the auditor's supply of audit quality.Post-SOX,the PCAOB's routine inspections make regulatory intervention frequent and direct,and SOX includes changes designed to increase not only the auditor’s supply of audit quality but also the client's demand for audit quality.This shift represents a fundamental change in the risk dynamics of US audit markets and suggests regulatory intervention is likely to play a large role in shaping audit quality in the future.One barrier to understanding the effects of regulation is the lack of research on the regulatory process.A fundamental unanswered question is whether the benefits of regulation outweigh its costs.If it does,the next question is which regulatory regime is best.For example,an alternative to the current US model is following an“IRS”model whereby regulators actually perform the audit(PCAOB,2007).However,while such a model may strengthen independence, it may also weaken competency.Another alternative is an insurance model,whereby auditing firms explicitly reimburse investor losses.The costs and benefits of these models are currently unexplored.8Our review makes several contributions.First,we define higher audit quality as greater assurance of high financial reporting quality.This definition reflects the continuous nature of audit quality,encompasses the auditor's broad responsibilities,and explicitly acknowledges audit quality as a component of financial reporting quality.While these features are implicitly assumed in many audit quality proxies,they are missing from existing definitions,creating a mismatch between the theoretical construct of audit quality and its empirical proxies.Second,we provide a framework for systematically choosing among the commonly used audit quality proxies,and for evaluating what we learn from their results.Existing research often lacks motivation for its proxy choices,and provides little discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the chosen proxies.We also review the commonly used audit quality models and conclude that future research would benefit from more conceptual guidance in disentangling the complex relation between audit quality and financial reporting quality.Third,we observe that the literature traditionally focuses primarily on the auditor’s supply of audit quality,with comparatively less attention to client demand-side factors.While SOX has shifted this focus to some degree,we encourage future researchers to continue expanding our knowledge of demand-side factors.Fourth,we note that prior research generally focuses on the incentives that drive audit quality,with less attention to competencies.Studies on client audit committee expertise and auditor industry specialization are the exception,and we urge future researchers to explore additional factors related to competency.Finally,we observe a dramatically heightened risk of regulatory intervention targeting both incentives and competencies of auditors to supply and clients to demand audit quality.Thus, future research that seeks to better understand the regulatory process is critical for understanding its effect on audit quality.The remainder of this review is organized as follows:Section2discusses the question“what is audit quality?”and Section3reviews the research that addresses“what drives client demand for audit quality?”Section4examines the literature that investigates“what drives auditor supply of audit quality?”and Section5reviews the literature that examines “what are the regulators’concerns about audit quality?”We summarize and conclude in Section6.7Donovan et al.(2014)suggest steering away from research motivated by regulation.The presence of regulation,however,is a defining feature of audit markets around the world,and the trend is toward more rather than less regulation(e.g.,the elimination of self-regulation in the US and the establishment of the PCAOB).Since we do not foresee a realistic scenario whereby the audits of public companies are likely to be unregulated,we believe research on better understanding regulated audit markets is worthwhile.8Donovan et al.(2014)call for research on whether regulated audit quality exceeds the level demanded by investors and clients.We agree and believe that studying the optimal level of regulation is inherently interesting.Their call,however,also begs the question of whether audit quality falls short of the amount demanded by investors and clients.Our credibility as researchers depends upon our taking an impartial approach in asking both questions.In this vein,we emphasize that our review is agnostic on the question of whether regulation in audit markets is optimal.。

外研社版英语(新标准)(一年级起点)五年级上册RM教学设计

2.通过复习课，进一步培养学生的观察、记忆、思维和实践能力，拓宽他们的知识面，提高他们对语言的综合运用能力。
3.通过丰富多彩的课堂活动，进一步激发学生学习英语的兴趣，使他们体验到学习英语的成就感。
教学重点
及难点
重点：帮助学生总结相关主题的词汇，复习主要的句型结构。
难点：帮助学生在具体的语境中正确使用目标语句进行表达。
1.在复习句型和词汇的过程中，完成关于物主代词、can/could和be going to结构的练习。
为保持教学内容的连续性，将主题复习与练习穿插进行。
整合教材第一单元活动2和活动4，以对比自己能力的形式复习can和could。
Step4.
Play a game.
(8 mins )
完成活动手册45页活动3中的游戏。
2.对分组竞赛中的胜利组进行口头表扬，对落后方进行真诚的鼓励。
板书设计：
Review Module
教学辅助
教材配套单词卡片、CD-ROM、自制PPT教学课件
教学策略
1．贯彻自主性原则。充分发挥学生的自主性，让学生积极、主动参与复习全过程，凡是学生能看懂、讲出来、归纳正确的内容，都要放手让学生去独立完成。
2．贯彻系统性原则。以“话题”把平时所学的局部的、分散的、零碎的知识通过“以线串珠”的方法，概括成表格式、纲要式等，使之系统化、结构化，便于学生的理解和记忆。
3.请各小组轮流到讲台前汇报，鼓励采用不同的方式，如组员领读，或指定其他组人员朗读等。
1.小组合作，选择主题，制作海报，列出与主题相关的关键句型和词汇。
2.积极参与小组汇报活动。和其他小组一起复习其他主题相关的句型及词汇。
以“话题”为主线复习词汇和关键句型，便于学生的理解和记忆。

肿瘤sd标准

肿瘤sd标准全文共四篇示例，供读者参考第一篇示例：肿瘤SD标准是指对于肿瘤患者进行放射治疗时的安全辐射剂量范围的限定标准。

在放射治疗中，准确测量肿瘤和周围正常组织的辐射剂量是非常重要的，因为辐射剂量的偏差可能会导致治疗的不准确性和对正常组织造成不可逆的伤害。

肿瘤SD标准的制定和遵守对于治疗效果的提高和患者的生存质量有着非常重要的意义。

肿瘤SD标准主要包括剂量的计划、测量和监控等方面。

在患者进行放射治疗前，医生会根据肿瘤的类型、位置和大小等因素，制定出合适的放射治疗方案。

根据治疗计划，放疗师会使用专业的放射治疗计划系统进行剂量的计划，确保肿瘤区域得到充分的辐射剂量，同时尽量减少对正常组织的辐射损伤。

在放疗过程中，对辐射剂量的测量也是非常重要的。

放疗师会定期对患者进行放射剂量的监控，确保实际接受的辐射剂量与计划的一致。

通过使用先进的辐射测量设备和高精度辐射剂量计算软件，可以帮助放疗师及时发现辐射剂量的偏差，并及时调整治疗计划，以确保肿瘤区域得到充分的辐射剂量，同时最大限度地减少对正常组织的损伤。

监控肿瘤SD标准的遵守也是非常重要的。

医院应建立健全的质量管理体系，对放射治疗设备进行定期维护和校准，确保设备的正常运行和准确性。

放疗师应接受专业的培训，熟练掌握放射治疗技术，确保治疗的安全性和有效性。

患者本身也应积极配合医院的治疗计划，准时完成治疗，避免对放疗计划的中断和影响。

肿瘤SD标准对于提高放射治疗的效果和减少辐射损伤具有非常重要的意义。

医院和医护人员应严格遵守肿瘤SD标准，确保患者接受到安全有效的放疗治疗，提高患者的生存率和生存质量。

希望随着科技的不断进步和医学技术的不断发展，肿瘤SD标准可以不断完善，为肿瘤患者提供更好的治疗和护理服务。

第二篇示例：肿瘤SD标准，即肿瘤标准化深度（Standardization Depth）标准，是指在肿瘤治疗过程中，确保患者获得最佳治疗效果和生存质量的一系列标准化措施。

曲安奈德外用制剂致医源性库欣综合征1例

•案例分析•曲安奈德外用制剂致医源性库欣综合征1例曾冰清"，汤智慧1,朱曼1(1.解放军总医院医疗保障中心药剂科,dts100853；2.深m市宝安区石岩人民医院药剂科,广东深m518108)［摘要］1例67岁女性患者，因颜面部、眼睑浮肿半年余入院。

患者10年前因反复皮疹，未间断使用曲安奈德外用制剂至今，半年前发现血压升高，最高180/90mm Hg(1mm Hg=0.133kPa),本次入院患者有满月脸、锁骨上脂肪垫，腹型肥胖，耄毛增多等肾上腺皮质醇增多表现，骨密度检查提示骨质疏松。

完善检查后排除内源性库欣综合征，结合患者长期外用曲安奈德制剂的用药史，停药后有乏力、纳差等皮质醇功能低下表现，考虑曲安奈德导致医源性库欣综合征。

立即停用曲安奈德，给予降压、抗骨质疏松等对症治疗，出院2个月后，患者肾上腺皮质醇增多症状明显缓解。

［关键词］曲安奈德;医源性库欣综合征；药晶不良反应［中图分类号］R977.1［文献标识码］B［文章编号］1672-8157(2020)06-0415-03 One case of iatrogenic Cushing syndrome induced by external preparation of tnamcinolone acetonideZENG Bing-qing1,2；TANG Zhi-hui1,ZHU Man%*Clinical Pharmacy Center of P harmacy Department,Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing100853,China;2.Department of P harmacy,People's Hospital of B aoan Shiyan,Shenzhen518108,China)[ABSTRACT]One67-year-old female patient was admitted to hospital because of facial and eyelid edema for more than half a year.She had been used external preparation of triamcinolone acetonide for more than10years because of repeated rashes.Half a year ago,her blood pressure was found to be up to180/90mm Hg(1mm Hg=0.133kPa).After admission,she showed classical symptoms of excessive glucocorticoid such as a moon face,dorsocervical and supraclavicular fat pads,central obesity,hirsutism, etc.Result of bone density test showed osteoprosis.Based on history of using triamcinolone acetonide for a long time,clinical manifestations of adrenal insufficiency like weakness and anorexia after withdrawal of triamcinolone acetonide,iatrogenic Cushing syndrome caused by triamcinolone acetonide was considered rather than spontaneous Cushing syndrome.And then triamcinolone acetonide was stopped immediately and systematic treatment including antihypertensive and anti-osteoporosis drugs were given to her at the same time.2months after discharging from hospital,her symptoms of excessive glucocorticoid significantly relieved. [KEY WORDS]Triamcinolone acetonide;Iatrogenic Cushing syndrome;Adverse drug reaction1临床资料患者，女性，67岁，于2019年1月无明显诱因出现颜面部、眼睑浮肿，晨重暮轻，就诊当地医院行各项检查及化验未见明显异常，测血压180/90mm Hg (1mm Hg=0.133kPa),先后给予马来酸左旋氨氯地平(5mg,qd)、氯沙坦钾氢氯嗟嗪(1片，qd)降压治疗，血压控制在130/80mm Hg左右，但颜面部、眼睑仍有浮肿。

MM肿瘤评估表

肿瘤评估表
肿瘤评估周期：筛选期评估记录为“筛选期”，基线（C1D1）评估记录为“MM1”，基线后第一次肿瘤评估记录为“MM2”，基线后第二次评估记录为“MM3”。

依次类推。

若为计划外访视，则记录为“计划外访视（CxDx）”。

*：填写百分比，判断缓解时与基线比较，判断疾病进展时与研究期间的最低值比较。

研究者签字和日期：
1
肿瘤评估表
部位A：头颅，肺部，纵隔，心脏，胸膜，淋巴结，肝脏，肾脏，骨骼，皮肤，软组织，盆腔，脾脏，中枢神经系统，胃，大肠，小肠，肾上腺，腹膜后肿块，眼，鼻腔，甲状腺，乳腺，肌肉骨骼，颈部，膀胱，宫颈等。

检查方法B：体格检查，PET-CT，平扫CT, 增强CT, 平扫MR, 增强MR，骨扫描，其他。

2
肿瘤评估表
受试者筛选号：受试者姓名缩写：
1.此页从基线评估开始填写。

基线（C1D1）评估记录为“MM1”，基线后第一次肿瘤评估记录为“MM2”，基线后第二次评估记录为“MM3”。

依次类
推。

若为计划外访视，则填写“计划外访视（CxDx）”。

2.此页疗效评估结果指当次肿瘤评估结果，具体选项如下：sCR, CR, VGPR, PR, MR, SD, PD, NE；基线评估（MM1/C1D1）请填写：可评估/不可评估。

3.疗效获得日期：适用于SD或更佳疗效时，以能判断上述疗效的最晚检查日期作为疗效获得日期。

4.PD判定依据选项如下：A.血清M蛋白；B.尿M蛋白；C.血清游离轻链；D.浆细胞比例；E.浆细胞瘤；F.其他（请注明具体原因）。

5.若为PD，以能进行PD判定的最早检查日期作为PD日期。

3。