Reproduction case study biology homework

Posted: January 20th, 2023

Why would the scan show bone abnormalities?
What is William’s diagnosis?
Which endocrine organs are responsible for serum calcium levels?
Describe the feedback loop between the anterior pituitary and the production of testosterone in the testes

William, a 69-year-old retired male went to his doctor, complaining of leg pain that started in his lower back, ran across the side of his thigh and over the front of his knee. Next, he developed pain that radiated from his back to his front at the chest through the level of his nipples and also at the umbilicus.
A physical and laboratory tests showed hard nodule on his prostate and an elevation in several of the blood tests. His PSA (prostate specific antigen), an enzyme secreted by normal prostate tissue (0-4 ng/ml) was 453. Alkaline phosphatase was also elevated at 156 U/L, an indication of bone involvement.
A bone scan was ordered to visualize the bone involvement. (This test uses a calcium analogue attached to a radioactive tag. A special scanner can pick up images of this radioactivity and create an anatomical picture of the skeletal system. The radiation shows up as black spots on the film.)
Usually prostate cancer’s growth is initially influenced by the presence of testosterone. If testosterone is removed by castration, the cancer will often shrink for some period of time before the remaining fraction of testosterone-independent cancer cells grow.
William was not interested in castration and asked if there was another form of treatment. He was treated with a single shot of a drug which is slowly released into the body over a three month time period. Within that time the patient noticed marked relief in hi
Rubric for Research Paper

 
 
Outstanding – 20pts
Good  – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts

 
Outline
 
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Professional looking.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
 
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
 
Disorganized appearance.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Not professional.

Abstract
 
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
 
Not very informative or understandable.
 

Structure
 
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate.   Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.

Research
 
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
 
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used.  The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
 
Multiple sources cited  incorrectly.
Bibliography missing.
 

Critical
Thinki
 
ng
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
Arguments are
pertinent to the topic.   Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.