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.

[EX Q]: Context: BDNF blood levels are reduced in MDD. They can be increased with pharmacologic treatment and ECT, but it is not clear whether the combination of treatments promotes an additional increase. The present study aims to evaluate whether combined treatment promotes an increase in BDNF, restoring the level to that of non-depressed controls.', 'Ninety-nine adult inpatients were invited to participate in this naturalistic prospective cohort study between May 2011 and April 2013. Diagnosis was made by MINI, and the symptoms were evaluated at admission and at discharge by HDRS-17. Those inpatients with a diagnosis of depression were included and divided into two groups: those who underwent combined ECT and medication (31 subjects) and those who used only pharmacotherapy (68 subjects). Serum BDNF was measured in blood samples collected at admission and discharge. One hundred healthy blood donors without any psychiatric diagnosis were included as a control group.', 'There were no significant differences in serum BDNF levels between the combined and pharmacological groups at admission and at discharge, and no significant variation in BDNF occurred in any group during the treatment. There were no interactions between time and treatment groups nor significant time effects or treatment group effects for BDNF in the Generalized Estimating Equation Model (GEE). The control group had significantly higher serum BDNF levels in comparison with each of the treatment groups at admission and discharge (p = 0.00).\Question: Is combining ECT with pharmacological treatment of depressed inpatients in a naturalistic study associated with serum BDNF level increase?
[EX A]: Combination of ECT with pharmacological treatment did not result in increased serum BDNF levels and did not restore levels to that of controls.

[EX Q]: Context: To determine the role of factor V Leiden and prothrombin gene mutation in the pathogenesis of unexplained second and third trimester nonrecurrent fetal loss.', 'One hundred and fourteen women with unexplained nonrecurrent late fetal loss made up the study group, and 106 normal pregnant women with a history of delivery of at least one healthy fetus and no history of late fetal loss made up the control group. The study group was further divided into two subgroups: second (n = 36) and third (n = 78) trimester fetal loss. All women were tested for factor V Leiden and G20210A prothrombin gene mutations.', 'Twenty-one (18.4%) of the women in the study group and seven (6.6%) of the women in the control group were heterozygous carriers of factor V Leiden mutation (OR = 3.19). Eleven (9.6%) of the women in the study group and three (2.8%) of the women in the control group were heterozygous carriers of prothrombin gene mutation (OR = 3.66). In assessing with regard to trimesters, 18 (23%) factor V Leiden and 10 (12.8%) prothrombin gene mutations were present in the group of third trimester fetal loss (OR = 4.24 and OR = 5.04, respectively). Three (8.3%) factor V Leiden and one (2.7%) prothrombin gene mutation were detected in women with second trimester fetal loss (OR = 1.28 and OR = 0.40, respectively).\Question: Is third trimester nonrecurrent fetal loss associated with factor V Leiden and prothrombin gene mutations?
[EX A]: Factor V Leiden and prothrombin gene mutations were associated with third trimester nonrecurrent fetal loss. These mutations should be screened in women with third trimester but not second trimester unexplained nonrecurrent late fetal loss.

[EX Q]: Context: To determine the association of statin use with oncological outcomes and risk of pathologic upgrading following radical prostatectomy.', 'Using a prospectively populated database of 3042 men who underwent open radical prostatectomy, patients were grouped according to reported statin use at the time of surgery. The primary outcome was time to biochemical recurrence. The secondary outcome was risk of pathologic upgrading among a subset of 1256 patients with Gleason pattern 3\u2009+\u20093\u2009=\u20096 on biopsy. A multivariable Cox model was used to assess risk of biochemical recurrence, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess risk of pathologic upgrading.', 'Eight hundred twenty-four men (27%) reported statin use at the time of radical prostatectomy. Statin users were older and had higher body mass index, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, and lower pretreatment prostate-specific antigen values than statin nonusers. Over a median follow-up of 70 months (interquartile range: 36-107), a total of 455 men (15%) experienced biochemical recurrence. Statin use was not associated with biochemical recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.06, 95% confidence interval: 0.86-1.31). Of those men with biopsy Gleason 3\u2009+\u20093\u2009=\u20096 disease, 647 (52%) were upgraded to higher grade disease following radical prostatectomy; however, statin use was not associated with pathologic upgrading (adjusted odds ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.58-1.04).\Question: Is preoperative Statin Use at the Time of Radical Prostatectomy Associated With Biochemical Recurrence or Pathologic Upgrading?
[EX A]:
Preoperative statin use at the time of radical prostatectomy was not associated with biochemical recurrence or risk of pathologic upgrading in this cohort. These data add to the existing body of literature suggesting that statin use is not associated with more favorable clinical outcomes following radical prostatectomy.