TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Context: Cardiac mass and volumes are often elevated in athletes, but it is not known whether moderate physical activity is also associated with cardiac dilatation and hypertrophy in a healthy adult population.', 'In total, 1096 adults (54% female, median age 39 years) without cardiovascular disease or cardiomyopathy-associated genetic variants underwent cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to determine biventricular volumes and function. Physical activity was assessed using a validated activity questionnaire. The relationship between cardiac parameters and activity was assessed using multiple linear regression adjusting for age, sex, race, and systolic blood pressure. Logistic regression was performed to determine the effect of activity on the likelihood of subjects having cardiac dilatation or hypertrophy according to standard cardiac magnetic resonance normal ranges. Increasing physical activity was associated with greater left ventricular (LV) mass (β=0.23; P<0.0001) and elevated LV and right ventricular volumes (LV: β=0.26, P<0.0001; right ventricular: β=0.26, P<0.0001). Physical activity had a larger effect on cardiac parameters than systolic blood pressure (0.06≤β≤0.21) and a similar effect to age (-0.20≤β≤-0.31). Increasing physical activity was a risk factor for meeting imaging criteria for LV hypertrophy (adjusted odds ratio 2.1; P<0.0001), LV dilatation (adjusted odds ratio 2.2; P<0.0001), and right ventricular dilatation (adjusted odds ratio 2.2; P<0.0001).\Question: Does moderate Physical Activity in Healthy Adults be Associated With Cardiac Remodeling?

SOLUTION: Exercise-related cardiac remodeling is not confined to athletes, and there is a risk of overdiagnosing cardiac dilatation or hypertrophy in a proportion of active, healthy adults.

PROBLEM: Context: Trauma centers are currently benchmarked on mortality outcomes alone. However, pay-for-performance measures may financially penalize centers based on complications. Our objective was to determine whether the results would be similar to the current standard method of mortality-based benchmarking if trauma centers were profiled on complications.', 'We analyzed data from the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2010. Patients 16 years or older with blunt or penetrating injuries and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9 or higher were included. Risk-adjusted observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality ratios for each center were generated and used to rank each facility as high, average, or low performing. We similarly ranked facilities on O/E morbidity ratios defined as occurrence of any major complication. Concordance between hospital performance rankings was evaluated using a weighted κ statistic. Correlation between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios was assessed using Pearson coefficients. Sensitivity analyses were performed to mitigate the competing risk of death for the morbidity analyses.', 'A total of 449,743 patients from 248 facilities were analyzed. The unadjusted morbidity and mortality rates were 10.0% and 6.9%, respectively. No correlation was found between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios (r = -0.01). Only 40% of the centers had similar performance rankings for both mortality and morbidity. Of the 31 high performers for mortality, only 11 centers were also high performers for morbidity. A total of 78 centers were ranked as average, and 11 ranked as low performers on both outcomes. Comparison of hospital performance status using mortality and morbidity outcomes demonstrated poor concordance (weighted κ = 0.03, p = 0.22).\Question: Does benchmarking trauma centers on mortality alone reflect quality of care : implications for pay-for-performance?

SOLUTION: Mortality-based external benchmarking does not identify centers with high complication rates. This creates a dichotomy between current trauma center profiling standards and measures used for pay-for-performance. A benchmarking mechanism that reflects all measures of quality is needed.

PROBLEM: Context: In the isolated perfused pancreas, gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) has been shown to enhance glucagon secretion at basal glucose concentrations, but in healthy humans no glucagonotropic effect of GIP has yet been reported. Therefore, we studied the effect of GIP on glucagon secretion under normoglycaemic conditions.', "Ten healthy subjects (9 men, 1 woman; age 33+/-11; BMI 26.8+/-2.2 kg/m(2)) received three different doses of intravenous GIP (7, 20, and 60 pmol/kg body weight) and placebo. Venous blood samples were drawn over 30 min for glucagon and GIP concentrations (specific radioimmunoassays). In addition, 31 healthy subjects (16 men, 15 women; 42+/-11 years; BMI 24.4+/-2.7 kg/m(2)) were studied with 20 pmol GIP/kg. Statistics were done with RM-ANOVA and Duncan's post hoc tests.", 'Gastric inhibitory polypeptide dose-dependently stimulated glucagon secretion ( p=0.019) with a maximal increment after 10 min. Incremental glucagon concentrations (Delta(10-0 min)) were 0.1+/-0.7, 1.4+/-0.5, 2.4+/-0.5, and 3.4+/-0.8 pmol/l (for placebo and for 7, 20, and 60 pmol GIP/kg, respectively; p=0.017). After the injection of 20 pmol GIP/kg b.w. in 31 healthy subjects, glucagon concentrations increased over the baseline from 7.5+/-0.5 to 9.3+/-0.7 pmol/l ( p=0.0082).\Question: Does gastric inhibitory polypeptide ( GIP ) dose-dependently stimulate glucagon secretion in healthy human subjects at euglycaemia?

SOLUTION:
Glucagon secretion is dose-dependently stimulated by GIP at basal glucose concentrations. The absence of a glucagonotropic GIP effect in previous studies could be due to the hyperglycaemic conditions used in these experiments. Our results underline differences between GIP and the glucagonostatic incretin GLP-1.