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.

Input: Consider Input: Context: Sleep disturbances have been thought to augment pain. Sleep deprivation has been proven to produce hyperalgesic effects. It is still unclear whether these changes are truly specific to pain and not related to general changes in somatosensory functions. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of total sleep deprivation on thermal pain thresholds (heat, cold) and pain complaints. Thermal detection thresholds (warmth, cold) were included as covariates to determine the contribution of somatosensory functions to changes in pain processing.', 'Twenty healthy volunteers were randomly assigned either to two nights of total sleep deprivation or to two nights of undisturbed night sleep. Sleep deprivation nights were separated by two days with normal night sleep. Heat and cold pain thresholds as well as warmth and cold detection thresholds were measured by use of a peltier thermode in the evening before and the morning after each deprivation or control night. Pain complaints were examined by use of a questionnaire in parallel.', 'During treatment nights, sleep deprivation produced a significant overnight decrease in heat pain thresholds. Cold pain thresholds tended to decrease also during sleep deprivation, whereas the warmth and cold detection thresholds remained unaffected. Accordingly, no substantial contributions of the changes in thermal detection thresholds to the changes in thermal pain thresholds were determined by regression analyses. Pain complaints were not induced by sleep deprivation.\Question: Does sleep deprivation affect thermal pain thresholds but not somatosensory thresholds in healthy volunteers?

Output: The present findings suggest that sleep deprivation produces hyperalgesic changes that cannot be explained by nonspecific alterations in somatosensory functions.


Input: Consider Input: Context: Evidence of attack-related cognitive dysfunction in migraine is growing. Controversy exists on whether cognitive dysfunction, mainly executive, may persist between attacks. Measuring the impact of cognitive function is gaining importance in clinical and research settings in migraine.', 'To compare the performance of interictal migraine patients to controls in an assembled neuropsychological battery focused on executive functions and to study the practice effect of its repeated applications.', 'Assembly of the battery that was then applied twice within 6\xa0weeks to interictal migraineurs and matched healthy controls.', 'Migraine patients (n\xa0=\xa024) and controls (n\xa0=\xa024) had similar performance in both applications of the battery. There was a slight practice effect between the first and second evaluation, significant in Stroop Interference test (P\xa0=\xa00.002, multiplicity corrected); a meaningful score change was determined for each raw test scores.\Question: Is sequential brief neuropsychological evaluation of migraineurs identical to controls?

Output: Interictal migraineurs and controls performance is identical in a brief cognitive battery focused on executive functions. Repeated applications produced a practice effect that was quantified.


Input: Consider Input: Context: The antidepressant drug fluoxetine (FLU) is considered in the group of selective serotonine re-uptake inhibitors. Its distribution in brain and binding to human brain glutathione S-transferase-π (GST-π) have been shown. FLU can cross blood brain barrier and placenta, accumulate in fetus and may cause congenital malformations.', 'To elucidate the interaction of placental GST-π with FLU.', 'First, concentration-dependent inhibition of human placental GST-π was evaluated by using different FLU concentrations and then 0.3125, 0.625, 1.25, 2.5 and 5\u2009mM FLU concentrations were chosen and tested while keeping GSH concentration constant and 1-chloro-2,4-dinitrobenzene (CDNB) concentration varied and vice versa. The data were evaluated with different kinetic models and Statistica 9.00 for Windows.', 'The Vm, at variable [CDNB] (142\u2009±\u200916\u2009U/mg protein) was 3 times higher than the Vm obtained at variable [GSH] (49\u2009±\u20094\u2009U/mg protein). On the other hand, the Km for CDNB was ∼10 times higher than the Km for GSH (1.99\u2009±\u20090.36\u2009mM versus 0.21\u2009±\u20090.06\u2009mM). The IC50 value for FLU was 8.6\u2009mM. Both at constant [CDNB] and variable [GSH] and at constant [GSH] and variable [CDNB] the inhibition types were competitive with the Ki values of 5.62\u2009±\u20094.37 and 8.09\u2009±\u20091.27\u2009mM, respectively.\Question: Does fluoxetine-induced toxicity result in human placental glutathione S-transferase-π ( GST-π ) dysfunction?


Output: Although the Ki values obtained for FLU in vitro are high, due to their uneven distribution, long elimination time and inhibitory behavior on detoxification systems, it may cause defects in adults but these effects may be much more severe in fetus and result in congenital malformations.