hey, does anyone have an opinion on the verb show?

in a manuscript that i'm editing, the author uses show about a billion times. i find that (a) it sounds sloppy and vernacular-this may be personal taste-and (b) it isn'talways literally accurate (the SN and LC, which are parts of the brain, don't actually do any showing). there's a chance that show might have special neuropathologicalmeanings, but i haven't found anything of the sort. it's unclear from the literature whether neuropathologists are using it techinically or just suckily (in typical scientist fashion). anyway, i am trying to decide whether to keep the verb show in these sentences or to go with my gut and attempt to change it:

"Gross neuropathologic examination showed brain weighing 1230 g, mild atherosclerosis....

"The substantia nigra Emotion: snail and locus ceruleus (LC)showed a moderate loss of pigmented neurons....

"Initial laboratory studies showed normal thyroid tests, B12, chemistries....

anyone have insight on this?

When I worked as a medical typist, the doctors and specialists always used 'show' in that way. It looks quite natural and normal, to me. If its a medical piece of writing, I guess maybe you should leave them in, as some medical professionals get quite grumpy if things are altered. Maybe you could substitute 'exhibit', or even 'manifest; but I don't really think it's a good idea!
I think show is correct in such contexts.

You may want to use indicate
or some of the
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

I wouldn't recommend PARADE, FLAUNTin scientific writing. Emotion: wink

Best wishes, Clive
show is not wrong, but you also have exhibit, demonstrate, illustrate, reveal, present, display, explain, disclose, establish, confirm, determine, and indicate, just to name a few alternatives that may or may not work in place of show, depending on context, of course.

In these quotations from medical science, it appears that show means show evidence of, which seems a legitimate meaning of show.

thanks for the imput, everyone. it sounds like the majority of you grammar gurus disagree with me.

califjim - yes! and i think that's really my underlying question: is show = show evidence of? my inclination is to believe that the two are different. perhaps the evidence of is implied, and show is syntactically less precise. if so, that might explain my hesitancy to embrace these phrases.

in any case, thanks for the synonymns!
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
by the way, after using this site off and on for nearly a year, i just noticed that there's a science and medical english section. perhaps this post belonged there?