dkoterwa/mlqa_filtered huggingface dataset:
The repair of diseased heart valves and the surgical treatment of rhythm disturbances and aortic aneurysms can benefit from the imaging capabilities of a hybrid OR. Hybrid Cardiac Surgery is a widespread treatment for these diseases.

Question: What does a hybrid OR provide?
Answer: imaging capabilities
There are more factors to consider when deciding between ceiling- and floor-mounted systems. Ceiling-mounted systems require substantial ceiling space and, therefore, reduce the options to install surgical lights or booms. Nonetheless, many hospitals choose ceiling-mounted systems because they cover the whole body with more flexibility and – most importantly – without moving the table. The latter is sometimes a difficult and dangerous undertaking during surgery with the many lines and catheters that must also be moved. Moving from a parking to a working position during surgery, however, is easier with a floor-mounted system, because the C-arm just turns in from the side and does not interfere with the anesthesiologist. The ceiling-mounted system, by contrast, during surgery can hardly move to a parking position at the head end without colliding with anesthesia equipment. In an overcrowded environment like the OR, biplane systems add to the complexity and interfere with anesthesia, except for neurosurgery, where anesthesia is not at the head end. Monoplane systems are therefore clearly recommended for rooms mainly used for cardiac surgery.

Question: What makes changing positions during surgery less difficult?
Answer: a floor-mounted system

Question: how are the anasthesia equipement placed?
Answer: ceiling-mounted system
VATS (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery) is a minimally-invasive technique to resect lung nodules that saves the patient the trauma of a thoracotomy. Thereby, small ports are used to access the pulmonary lobes and introduce a camera on a thoracoscope, along with the necessary instruments. While this procedure speeds up recovery and potentially reduces complications, the loss of natural vision and tactile sensing makes it difficult for the surgeon to locate the nodules, especially in cases of non-superficial, ground-glass opaque, and small lesions. The yield rate for nodules < 1 cm can be below 40% as studies show. As a consequence sometimes more healthy tissue is resected than actually necessary in order to avoid missing (parts of) the lesion. Using advanced intra-operative imaging in the OR helps to precisely locate and resect the lesion in a potentially tissue-sparing and quick fashion. In order to be able to use image guidance during VATS, rotational angiography has to be performed before the introduction of ports, thus before the lobe in question deflates. This way the lesion is visible through the natural contrast of air. In a second step, hook wires, thread needles, or contrast agent (Lipiodol, Iopamidol) are introduced into or next to the lesion to ensure visibility on the angiogram after lung deflation. Then, the conventional part of VATS starts with the introduction of thoracoscopes. The imaging system is used in fluoroscopic mode now, where both the inserted instruments and the previously marked lesion are well visible. A precise resection is now possible. In case contrast agent has been used to mark the lesion, it will also drain into the regional lymph nodes, which then can be resected within the same procedure.

Question: Where is the imagining system used?
Answer: fluoroscopic mode
X-ray radiation is ionizing radiation, thus exposure is potentially harmful. Compared to a mobile C-Arm, which is classically used in surgery, CT scanners and fixed C-Arms work on a much higher energy level, which induces higher dose. Therefore, it is very important to monitor radiation dose applied in a hybrid OR both for the patient and the medical staff.There are a few simple measures to protect people in the OR from scatter radiation, thus lower their dose. Awareness is one critical issue, otherwise the available protection tools might be neglected. Among these tools is protective clothing in the form of a protective apron for the trunk, a protective thyroid shield around the neck and protective glasses. The later may be replaced by a ceiling-suspended lead glass panel. Additional lead curtains can be installed at the table side to protect the lower body region. Even more restrictive rules apply to pregnant staff members.A very effective measure of both protection to both the staff and the patient of course is applying less radiation. There is always a trade-off between radiation dose and image quality. A higher x-ray dose leads to a clearer picture. Modern software technology can improve image quality during post-processing, such that the same image quality is reached with a lower dose. Image quality thereby is described by contrast, noise, resolution and artifacts. In general, the ALARA principle (as low as reasonably achievable) should be followed. Dose should be as low as possible, but image quality can only be reduced to the level that the diagnostic benefit of the examination is still higher than the potential harm to the patient.

Question: What should be kept at a higher level than the risk of injury to the patient?
Answer: diagnostic benefit

Question: What are the trade off of X-ray?
Answer: radiation dose

Question: What does lead do when placed on the table side according to this text?
Answer: protect the lower body region
additional information which is not visible in the fluoroscopic image. Some software available provides landmarks automatically, more can be added manually be the surgeon or a qualified technician. One example is the placement of a fenestrated stentgraft to treat an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The ostia of the renal arteries can be circled on the 3D image and then overlaid on the live fluorscopy. As the marking has been done in 3D, it will update with any change of the fluoroscopy angulation to match the current view.

Question: Who can manually add landmarks to the software?
Answer: surgeon or a qualified technician
Yao was pressured to enter the NBA draft in 1999 by Li Yaomin, the deputy general manager of the Shanghai Sharks. Li also influenced Yao to sign a contract for Evergreen Sports Inc. to serve as his agent. The agreement entitled Evergreen to 33% of Yao's earnings, but the contract was later determined to be invalid.When Yao decided to enter the 2002 NBA draft, a group of advisers was formed that came to be known as "Team Yao". The team consisted of Yao's negotiator, Erik Zhang; his NBA agent, Bill Duffy; his Chinese agent, Lu Hao; University of Chicago economics professor John Huizinga; and the vice president for marketing at BDA Sports Management, Bill Sanders. Yao was widely predicted to be picked number one overall. However, some teams were concerned about Yao's NBA eligibility because of uncertainty over whether the CBA would let Yao play in the United States.Shortly after Wang Zhizhi refused to return to China to play for the national team and was subsequently banned from playing for China, the CBA stipulated that Yao would have to return to play for the national team. They also said they would not let him go to the United States unless the Houston Rockets would take him first overall. After assurances from Team Yao that the Rockets would draft Yao with their number one pick, the CBA gave permission on the morning of the draft for Yao to play in the U.S. When the Rockets selected Yao with the first pick of the draft, he became the first international player ever to be selected first overall without having previously played U.S. college basketball.

Question: Which agent did Yao sign for as a result of Li's influence?
Answer: Evergreen Sports Inc.
During Newton's trial, a motion in Parliament sought to investigate Parke's allegations of a cover-up. Henry Labouchère, a Member of Parliament from the Radical wing of the Liberal Party, was staunchly against homosexuality and had campaigned successfully to add the "gross indecency" amendment (known as the "Labouchère Amendment") to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. He was convinced that the conspiracy to cover up the scandal went further up the government than assumed. Labouchère made his suspicions known in Parliament on 28 February 1890. He denied that "a gentleman of very high position"—presumably Prince Albert Victor—was in any way involved with the scandal, but accused the government of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He suggested that the Prime Minister Lord Salisbury and other officials colluded to hamper the investigation, allowing Somerset and Hammond to escape, delaying the trials and failing to prosecute the case with vigour. Labouchère's accusations were rebutted by the Attorney General, Sir Richard Webster, who was also the prosecutor in the Newton case. Charles Russell, who had prosecuted Parke and was defending Newton, sat on the Liberal benches with Labouchère but refused to be drawn into the debate. After an often passionate debate over seven hours, during which Labouchère was expelled from Parliament after saying "I do not believe Lord Salisbury" and refusing to withdraw his remark, the motion was defeated by a wide margin, 206–66. In a subsequent speech to the House of Lords, Salisbury bore witness against himself by suggesting his memory of his handling of the affair was defective.

Question: How long was Labouchere's Parliament debate before he was thrown out?
Answer: over seven hours
In July 1889, Police Constable Luke Hanks was investigating a theft from the London Central Telegraph Office. During the investigation, a fifteen-year-old telegraph boy named Charles Thomas Swinscow was discovered to be in possession of fourteen shillings, equivalent to several weeks of his wages. At the time, messenger boys were not permitted to carry any personal cash in the course of their duties, to prevent their own money being mixed with that of the customers. Suspecting the boy's involvement in the theft, Constable Hanks brought him in for questioning. After hesitating, Swinscow admitted that he earned the money working as a prostitute for a man named Charles Hammond, who operated a male brothel at 19 Cleveland Street. According to Swinscow, he was introduced to Hammond by a General Post Office clerk, eighteen-year-old Henry Newlove. In addition, he named two seventeen-year-old telegraph boys who also worked for Hammond: George Alma Wright and Charles Ernest Thickbroom. Constable Hanks obtained corroborating statements from Wright and Thickbroom and, armed with these, a confession from Newlove.Constable Hanks reported the matter to his superiors and the case was given to Detective Inspector Frederick Abberline. Inspector Abberline went to the brothel on 6 July with a warrant to arrest Hammond and Newlove for violation of Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. The Act made all homosexual acts between men, as well as procurement or attempted procurement of such acts, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment with or without hard labour. He found the house locked and Hammond gone, but Abberline was able to apprehend Newlove at his mother's house in Camden Town. In the time between his statement to Hanks and his arrest, Newlove had gone to Cleveland Street and warned Hammond, who had consequently escaped to his brother's house in Gravesend.

Question: Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 mad what illegal?
Answer: all homosexual acts between men

Question: The seventeen year olds had what job?
Answer: telegraph boys

Question: How much currency did the teenager have?
Answer: fourteen shillings

Question: To whom was the case transferred after getting a confession from Newlove?
Answer: Detective Inspector Frederick Abberline
The Cleveland Street scandal occurred in 1889, when a homosexual male brothel in Cleveland Street, London, was discovered by police. The government was accused of covering up the scandal to protect the names of aristocratic and other prominent patrons. At the time, sexual acts between men were illegal in Britain, and the brothel's clients faced possible prosecution and certain social ostracism if discovered. It was rumoured that Prince Albert Victor, the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and second-in-line to the British throne had visited, though this has never been substantiated. Unlike overseas newspapers, the English press never named the Prince, but the allegation influenced the handling of the case by the authorities, and has coloured biographers' perceptions of him since.

Question: Why would the government try to gloss over the scandal?
Answer: to protect the names of aristocratic and other prominent patrons
The police acquired testimonies that Lord Arthur Somerset, an equerry to the Prince of Wales, was a patron. Both he and the brothel keeper, Charles Hammond, managed to flee abroad before a prosecution could be brought. The male prostitutes, who also worked as telegraph messenger boys for the Post Office, were given light sentences and no clients were prosecuted. After Henry James FitzRoy, Earl of Euston, was named in the press as a client, he successfully sued for libel.

Question: What did Henry James do successfully?
Answer: sued for libel
A section of rubble wall about 15 m (50 ft) long and 4 m (13 ft) high remains, incorporated into an outbuilding of the adjacent farm on its north side. The ruins and the later farmhouse are jointly grade II listed and the castle remains are designated as a scheduled monument. The area to the south of the wall has been excavated to reveal the ashlar bases of two polygonal towers. The site is on the east side of Castle Street in a private garden to which there is no public access.Some of the stone taken from the castle was used to construct the mid-18th-century grade II-listed buildings at 43 and 45 Castle Street, and other buildings known to have used the stone, but no longer extant, include old houses demolished to build the Castle Mill textile factory. The mill, now demolished, was said to have been built on castle foundations up to 4 m (12 ft) thick; 15 Castle Street also rests on the old foundation wall. It is likely that the former Melbourne Furnace and the Furnace Farm barn also used recycled castle material.An early 19th-century excavation found underground apartments "of considerable extent and superior workmanship", and excavations in the latter part of the same century found considerable foundations in the gardens of Castle Farm. Castle Mills housing estate contains a now-covered well 2 m (6 ft) in width and 15 m (50 ft) deep, and work in 1961 uncovered massive 5 m (16 ft) foundations east of the old mill and on the same alignment as the existing wall. Excavations in 1969–1971 found an extensive network of walls faced with ashlar, a door post, the base of a spiral staircase and evidence of an outer courtyard. Many stones had mason's marks. During construction works in 1988, masonry including the rubble centres of two large east–west walls was found in test trenches. Apart from the area of the turret bases next to the standing wall, none of the archaeology is now visible.

Question: When did the construction work find the rubble?
Answer: 1988
Earl Thomas granted the manor to his steward, Robert de Holland, in February 1308. In 1311, Robert obtained a licence to crenellate from Edward II in order to fortify the manor house, and the more modest earlier building was converted into a castle between 1311 and 1322. Local tradition says that the stone was obtained from a quarry on the site of what is now Melbourne Pool. The records show £1,313 was spent on the project in the year 1313–14, of which £548 was paid to masons for dressing stone. Several masons working on the project were involved in an affray at Ravenstone in 1315. The important medieval buildings in Melbourne were constructed from the local bedrock, Millstone Grit. This is a coarsely grained sandstone which can be worked to produce good-quality ashlar. The village was centred around the church, castle and High Street until the late 18th century.Earl Thomas, with other barons, captured King Edward's favourite, Piers Gaveston, and killed him in 1312. Nevertheless, the King stayed at Melbourne in 1314. For a time, after Edward's defeat at Bannockburn, the earl, a friend of the Scots, controlled most of England, but by 1321 Edward had raised an army and driven Thomas from the Midlands. The Lancastrian castles at Melbourne and Tutbury were left deserted and looted by the local populace. Earl Thomas was finally defeated at the Battle of Boroughbridge in 1322. He was swiftly executed, and Robert de Holland was beheaded in 1328. The King sent a garrison to Melbourne and appointed a steward, Ralph Basset, to replace the incumbent, John de Hardedeshull. In March, those who had stolen from the castle were arrested, and by April Edward had withdrawn his troops. He appointed Robert Tocher and Roger de Beler in 1323 to help administer his possessions in Melbourne using money obtained from confiscations of rebel property in Staffordshire. Edward stayed at Melbourne again in 1325, and while there he issued a right to collect tolls to the men of nearby Swarkestone to repair the bridge over the Trent.

Question: What role did Robert de Holland play to Earl Thomas?
Answer: steward

Question: What materials were the structures in Melbourne made of?
Answer: the local bedrock, Millstone Grit
From the early 14th century, Melbourne Castle was mainly in the possession of the Earls and Dukes of Lancaster or the crown. Improvements and repairs were made, particularly by John of Gaunt, and the building was in generally good condition throughout the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. John I, Duke of Bourbon, was kept at Melbourne for 19 years after his capture at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, and the castle was considered as a possible prison for Mary, Queen of Scots, although events led to her incarceration elsewhere.

Question: In 1415 which castle was under the consideration to be used as a prison by Mary Queen of scots?
Answer: Melbourne Castle
Melbourne is a town in South Derbyshire close to the River Trent, which may have originated as buildings associated with the royal manor to the south of the nearby settlement at Kings Newton. Melbourne Castle was constructed on the site of an earlier manor house of unknown date; there is an old tradition that the manor was originally established in about the year 900, during the reign of Alfred the Great, but there is no evidence for this. As recorded in the Domesday Book, the manor of Melbourne and its lands were the property of King Edward the Confessor prior to the Norman Conquest. The property then passed into the hands of William I of England. After creating the Diocese of Carlisle in 1133, Henry I gave the manor for life to Æthelwold, the first bishop. Some time later, the diocese built a palace nearby on the site of what is now Melbourne Hall. When Bishop Æthelwold died in about 1156, the manor reverted to the crown.A royal hunting park close to Melbourne was probably created by King John around 1200, and the King is known to have stayed at the manor house on at least five occasions. John gave the manor and its lands to Hugh Beauchamp, although they appear to have soon reverted to the crown, being gifted by Henry III to Bishop Walter Mauclerk of Carlisle in about 1230. The estate returned to the crown on the bishop's death in 1248, and Henry granted the land to his son, Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster, in 1265. At some later date, the manor appears to have been granted to a Philip Marc, before passing to Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster, the King's son. This was in 1298 when he came of age, his father having died two years earlier. Early references to the house itself are rare, but there are records of repairs to the gutters in 1246 and to the roof of the King's Chamber in 1248.

Question: when did the Bishop pass away?
Answer: 1248

Question: What more recent building was built on the locale of the palace?
Answer: Melbourne Hall
The castle was in decline by the end of the reign of Elizabeth I. Although the stonework was sound, minimal maintenance had led to significant deterioration of other parts of the structure. The manor was purchased in 1604 by Henry Hastings, 5th Earl of Huntingdon, who had his own castle in nearby Ashby-de-la-Zouch. The Melbourne property was then demolished and used as a source for building materials. All that remains of Melbourne Castle today is a section of wall about 15 m (50 ft) long and 4 m (13 ft) high and some foundations; nothing is known of the internal layout of the former building. The ruins are grade II listed and the site is a scheduled monument. There is no public access to the castle remains.

Question: What are the measurements of the Melbourne Castle?
Answer: 15 m (50 ft) long and 4 m (13 ft) high

Question: what was the eventual fate of the melbourne property?
Answer: demolished and used as a source for building materials
The castle, still unfinished at the time of Thomas' execution, along with its lands, remained as crown property until it was bestowed on Henry, 3rd Earl of Lancaster, Earl Thomas' brother, in 1327. In turn it passed to Henry's son, the fourth earl, who became the first Duke of Lancaster. At the time of the duke's death in 1361, his constable was Ingram Fauconer, who received an annual life stipend of £10, a further £5 going to his wife. Henry's heiress was Blanche, wife of John of Gaunt. Duke John confirmed Fauconer's pension when he came into possession of the Lancastrian lands. Catalina, the three-year-old daughter of John by his second wife Constance of Castile, was given her own room and a Castilian attendant at the castle in 1375.Peter Melbourne was made keeper of the Melbourne estate in 1377 with an annual income of £10. He was granted another 66s 8d in 1386, and 10 marks (£6 13s 4d) in 1395. The last award was conditional on his not meddling with the offices of constable and keeper of the parks, which had passed on to his son, also called Peter. The younger Peter Melbourne was involved in the upbringing of the future Henry IV during the reign of Richard II. He was again appointed constable and steward of the Derbyshire manor in March 1399, although he gave up his office in April in return for an annuity from King Richard, who had confiscated the Lancastrian estates when John of Gaunt died earlier that year. Upon Henry's seizure of the throne, Peter was confirmed as constable, and in October 1399 his annuity was increased from £10 to 100 marks (£66 8s); in the following year he was awarded land in Derbyshire confiscated from Thomas Merke, Bishop of Carlisle, co-leader of plot against the King.The Duchy of Lancaster continued to improve and expand the property through the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. John of Gaunt had windows glazed in the Communal Hall and the Great Chamber in 1392/3, along with other works. He repaired a drawbridge in 1393/4 and made plumbing improvements in 1399/1400, using lead acquired as a forfeit two years earlier.For 19 years, the castle served as a prison for John I, Duke of Bourbon after he was taken at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. His custodian was a Nicholas Montgomery the Younger. Nineteenth-century local historian John Joseph Briggs claimed that during the Wars of the Roses, the castle was partially dismantled by the Lancastrian forces of Margaret of Anjou, but since her campaign was along the line of the Great North Road, it was Melbourn, Cambridgeshire she sacked, not its Derbyshire namesake.In 1545, antiquarian John Leland reported to Henry VIII the property was in good enough shape that it was described as "praty and yn meately good reparation" perhaps following repairs in the reign of Edward IV, when Sir Ralph Shirley, a commander at Agincourt, was governor of the castle.

Question: What was officially recognized by Duke John when the Lancastrian lands were acquired?
Answer: Fauconer's pension