Given a passage with a context and an answer, construct a question on the basis of the information present in the passage. Construct the question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) it is answerable from the passage, (iii) its answer is unique (iv) it answer uses text phrases from the passage. Avoid creating questions that (i) can't be answered correctly without actually understanding the passage and (ii) uses the same words or phrases given in the passage.

[Q]: Context: Food atopy patch tests (APTs) are considered a useful tool for the diagnosis of food allergy. Hypersensitivity to peanuts has not been investigated by means of APTs so far.', 'APTs and skin prick tests (SPTs) with peanuts were performed in 136 atopic dermatitis (AD) patients. Relevance of positive and negative responses to these tests was assessed by repeated open challenges with peanuts.', 'Nine percent of our AD patients reacted to the challenge. Positive responses to APTs were recorded in 19% of the patients, whereas in 12% positive SPTs were observed. APTs were more frequently positive in subjects with eczematous responses after challenge with respect to those with urticarial reactions. SPT reactivity proved to be higher in patients above 12 years of age, whereas APT positivity was more frequent in children under 6 years. APT sensitivity proved significantly higher than SPT sensitivity, in particular in children under 12 years of age. On the contrary, SPT specificity and positive predictive value were significantly higher with respect to those of APT in the age group of subjects under 6 years of age.
Answer: Our data suggest that APTs with peanuts may represent a useful integration to standard testing modalities employed for the diagnosis of peanut allergy in AD patients.
[A]: Does combined skin prick and patch testing enhance identification of peanut-allergic patients with atopic dermatitis?


[Q]: Context: Replacing live-attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) with inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV) is part of the global strategy to eradicate poliomyelitis. China was declared polio-free in 2000 but continues to record cases of vaccine-associated-poliomyelitis and vaccine-derived-poliovirus outbreaks. Two pilot safety studies and two larger immunogenicity trials evaluated the non-inferiority of IPV (Poliorix™, GSK Vaccines, Belgium) versus OPV in infants and booster vaccination in toddlers primed with either IPV or OPV in China.', 'In pilot safety studies, 25 infants received 3-dose IPV primary vaccination (Study A, www.clinicaltrial.gov NCT00937404) and 25 received an IPV booster after priming with three OPV doses (Study B, NCT01021293). In the randomised, controlled immunogenicity and safety trial (Study C, NCT00920439), infants received 3-dose primary vaccination with IPV (N=541) or OPV (N=535) at 2,3,4 months of age, and a booster IPV dose at 18-24 months (N=470, Study D, NCT01323647: extension of study C). Blood samples were collected before and one month post-dose-3 and booster. Reactogenicity was assessed using diary cards. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were captured throughout each study.', 'Study A and B showed that IPV priming and IPV boosting (after OPV) was safe. Study C: One month post-dose-3, all IPV and ≥ 98.3% OPV recipients had seroprotective antibody titres towards each poliovirus type. The immune response elicited by IPV was non-inferior to Chinese OPV. Seroprotective antibody titres persisted in ≥ 94.7% IPV and ≥ 96.1% OPV recipients at 18-24 months (Study D). IPV had a clinically acceptable safety profile in all studies. Grade 3 local and systemic reactions were uncommon. No SAEs were related to IPV administration.
Answer: Trivalent IPV is non-inferior to OPV in terms of seroprotection (in the Chinese vaccination schedule) in infant and toddlers, with a clinically acceptable safety profile.
[A]: Is primary and booster vaccination with an inactivated poliovirus vaccine ( IPV ) immunogenic and well-tolerated in infants and toddlers in China?


[Q]: Context: The tumor suppressor gene TSLC1/IGSF4 on chromosomal region 11q23 is frequently inactivated by promoter methylation in various cancers, including nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). Several studies have demonstrated that the hypermethylation of the CpG islands of genes, including tumor suppressors, is associated with exposure to tobacco smoke. The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible association of TSLC1/IGSF4 methylation with tobacco smoking as well as with the clinical characteristics of tumors using a large number of primary NSCLC.', 'The promoter methylation of TSLC1/IGSF4 was analyzed in 103 primary NSCLC. TSLC1/IGSF4 expression was examined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and immunohistochemistry, whereas its methylation status was determined by bisulfite single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) coupled with bisulfite sequencing.', 'The TSLC1/IGSF4 promoter was methylated in 45 (44%) of 103 primary NSCLC. Methylation was observed in all histologic subtypes of NSCLC, including adenocarcinoma (29 of 68, 43%), squamous cell carcinoma (14 of 26, 54%), adenosquamous carcinoma (1 of 2, 50%), and large cell carcinoma (1 of 7, 14%). The incidence of methylation in tumors was significantly higher in male patients than in female patients (P = .027). The TSLC1/IGSF4 methylation was preferentially observed in heavy smokers (smoking index > or = 800) (P = .0054). Furthermore, in smokers the methylation was significantly associated with pack-years smoked (P = .034) and cigarettes per day (P = .021). The TSLC1/IGSF4 methylation was also significantly associated with a shorter disease-free survival (P = .049), providing an independent prognostic factor (P = .038) in adenocarcinoma patients.
Answer: TSLC1/IGSF4 methylation is associated with tobacco smoking and could be an indicator of poor prognosis.
[A]:
Is hypermethylation of the TSLC1/IGSF4 promoter associated with tobacco smoking and a poor prognosis in primary nonsmall cell lung carcinoma?