In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.

Example Input: Context: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the implementation of evidence-based guidelines and subsequent feedback to surgeons in the management of acute pancreatitis.', 'An evidence-based Pancreatitis Proforma was developed. Data were prospectively recorded (01/06/2005-30/09/2007). Audit feedback (AFB) was performed at 9 months. A final analysis was performed comparing outcomes pre- and post-audit feedback.', '372 patients were included. Median age (range) was 57 (12-96) years. 168 (45.2%) patients were admitted pre-AFB. Post-AFB, there was a significant increase in the number of patients whose diagnosis was made within 48 hours (135/168 (80.4%) vs 189/204 (92.6%), p<0.001) and who underwent definitive treatment for mild biliary pancreatitis (33/61 (54.1%) vs 56/70 (80.0%), p=0.002). Post-AFB there was also a significant reduction in the number of computed tomography (CT) scans performed for patients with mild acute pancreatitis (23/85 (27.1%) vs 13/99 (13.1%), p=0.018). Mortality (9/168 (5.4%) vs 3/204 (1.4%), p=0.040) also decreased. On multivariate analysis, AFB was an independent factor for change in the use of CT scans (p=0.015) and management of patients with mild biliary pancreatitis (p=0.039).\Question: Is closing the audit loop necessary to achieve compliance with evidence-based guidelines in the management of acute pancreatitis?
Example Output: For evidence-based guidelines to be effective, feedback to surgeons is necessary.

Example Input: Context: Reduction-oxidation (redox) signaling, the translation of an oxidative intracellular environment into a cellular response, is mediated by the reversible oxidation of specific cysteine thiols. The latter can result in disulfide formation between protein hetero- or homodimers that alter protein function until the local cellular redox environment has returned to the basal state. We have previously shown that this mechanism promotes the nuclear localization and activity of the Forkhead Box O4 (FOXO4) transcription factor.', 'In this study, we sought to investigate whether redox signaling differentially controls the human FOXO3 and FOXO4 paralogs.', 'We present evidence that FOXO3 and FOXO4 have acquired paralog-specific cysteines throughout vertebrate evolution. Using a proteome-wide screen, we identified previously unknown redox-dependent FOXO3 interaction partners. The nuclear import receptors Importin-7 (IPO7) and Importin-8 (IPO8) form a disulfide-dependent heterodimer with FOXO3, which is required for its reactive oxygen species-induced nuclear translocation. FOXO4 does not interact with IPO7 or IPO8.\Question: Does evolutionary acquisition of cysteines determine FOXO paralog-specific redox signaling?
Example Output: IPO7 and IPO8 control the nuclear import of FOXO3, but not FOXO4, in a redox-sensitive and disulfide-dependent manner. Our findings suggest that evolutionary acquisition of cysteines has contributed to regulatory divergence of FOXO paralogs, and that phylogenetic analysis can aid in the identification of cysteines involved in redox signaling.

Example Input: Context: Endothelial cells (EC) shed endothelial microparticles (EMP) in activation and apoptosis.', 'We compared the antigenic expression of EMP species released during activation as compared to apoptosis, in three cell lines.', 'EC from renal and brain microvascular (MiVEC) and coronary macrovascular (MaVEC) origin were incubated with TNF-alpha to induce activation, or deprived of growth factors to induce apoptosis. Antigens expressed on EMP and EC were assayed flow cytometrically and included constitutive markers (CD31, CD51/61, CD105), inducible markers (CD54, CD62E and CD106), and annexin V binding.', 'It was found that in apoptosis, constitutive markers in EMP were markedly increased (CD31>CD105), with a concomitant decrease in expression in EC. Annexin V EC surface binding and annexin V+ EMP were more sharply increased in apoptosis than in activation. In contrast, in activation, inducible markers in EMP were markedly increased in both EMP and EC (CD62E>CD54>CD106). Coronary MaVEC released significantly less EMP than MiVEC.\Question: Do endothelial cells release phenotypically and quantitatively distinct microparticles in activation and apoptosis?
Example Output:
EC release qualitatively and quantitatively distinct EMP during activation compared to apoptosis. Analysis of EMP phenotypic signatures may provide clinically useful information on the status of the endothelium.