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.

Example Input: Context: The specific aim of the study was to investigate and compare epiphyseal length and extension in the proximal humerus, closure in the growth plate and bone marrow signal intensity related to the proximal humeral physis in the dominant arm and the non-dominant arm of the asymptomatic adolescent elite tennis player.', 'The study sample included 35 asymptomatic elite young tennis players (15 males and 20 females, mean age 17.4\xa0years\xa0±\xa02.7). Each player contributed with two shoulders to the MRI measurement. The non-dominant arm was used as a control.', 'Relative reliability between the radiologists was excellent (ICC 0.78-0.96). Statistically significant differences between dominant arm and non-dominant arm in epiphyseal length (mm) laterally (DA 27.3 vs NDA 26.7) were shown. Statistically significant differences were also found in epiphyseal extension (mm) laterally (DA 36.1 vs NDA 35.1) and ventrally (DA 36.2 vs NDA 34.8). No statistically significant differences were found between dominant arm and non-dominant arm in epiphyseal extension (mm) medially (DA 31.7 vs NDA 31.7) and dorsally (DA 22.6 vs NDA 22.1).
Answer: Significant findings assessing MRI measurements of the epiphyseal plate in the asymptomatic adolescent elite tennis player might reflect a development of consecutive alterations in the epiphyseal plate in the dominant arm.
Example Output: Do asymptomatic elite young tennis players show lateral and ventral growth plate alterations of proximal humerus on MRI?

Example Input: Context: Pulmonary vein (PV) isolation is a curative treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation. The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively the effects of adenosine administration on the PV activity and atrio-venous conduction after PV isolation.', 'Twenty-nine patients (21 m; age: 55+/-8 years) were submitted to ostial PV isolation guided by basket catheter recordings. After successful isolation, the effects of a 12 mg intravenous bolus of adenosine were tested in 62 PVs. In 22/62 PVs (35%), left atrium (LA)-to-PV conduction was transiently (16.6+/-7.1 s, range: 3.8-27.9 s) or permanently (3 PVs) restored in response to adenosine administration. The prevalence of this phenomenon was 39% in left superior PVs, 43% in right superior PVs, and 22% in left inferior PVs (p=0.365). It occurred more frequently in the presence of dissociated PV activity (11/15 PVs, 73% vs. 11/47 PVs, 23%; p=0.002), whereas it was not influenced by the median duration of the radiofrequency current (RFC) delivery for each PV [19 (IQR: 12-26) min vs. 16 (IQR: 11-24) min: p=0.636]. A lengthening or shortening of the LA-PV conduction time was observed at LA-PV conduction appearance and disappearance in 36% and 55% of the cases, respectively. Further RFC applications (median: 5.5 min, IQR: 4-11 min) at the residual conduction breakthrough(s) indicated by the basket catheter recordings definitively eliminated adenosine-induced recovery of LA-PV conduction in all cases. Finally, when present, intrinsic PV discharge was invariably depressed by adenosine administration.
Answer: Adenosine may transiently or permanently re-establish LA-PV conduction after apparently successful PV isolation. This phenomenon is abolished by additional RFC delivery. However, its possible influence on the clinical results of PV ablation must be evaluated by properly designed, randomized studies.
Example Output: Does adenosine restore atrio-venous conduction after apparently successful ostial isolation of the pulmonary veins?

Example Input: Context: We sought to determine the relative lipase production of a range of ocular bacterial isolates and to assess the efficacy of glycerol monolaurate (GML) in inhibiting this lipase production in high lipase-producing bacteria without affecting bacterial cell growth.', 'Staphylococcus aureus,Staphylococcus epidermidis,Propionibacterium acnes, and Corynebacterium spp. were inoculated at a density of 10(6)/mL in varying concentrations of GML up to 25 μg/mL for 24 hours at 37 °C with constant shaking. Bacterial suspensions were centrifuged, bacterial cell density was determined, and production of bacterial lipase was quantified using a commercial lipase assay kit.', 'Staphylococcus spp. produced high levels of lipase activity compared with P. acnes and Corynebacterium spp. GML inhibited lipase production by Staphylococcal spp. in a dose-dependent manner, with S. epidermidis lipase production consistently more sensitive to GML than S. aureus. Glycerol monolaurate showed significant (P < 0.05) lipase inhibition above concentrations of 15 μg/mL in S. aureus and was not cytotoxic up to 25 μg/mL. For S. epidermidis, GML showed significant (P < 0.05) lipase inhibition above 7.5 μg/mL.
Answer: Lipase activity varied between species and between strains. Staphylococcal spp. produced higher lipase activity compared with P. acnes and Corynebacterium spp. Glycerol monolaurate inhibited lipase production by S. aureus and S. epidermidis at concentrations that did not adversely affect bacterial cell growth. GML can be used to inhibit ocular bacterial lipase production without proving detrimental to commensal bacteria viability.
Example Output:
Does glycerol Monolaurate inhibit Lipase Production by Clinical Ocular Isolates Without Affecting Bacterial Cell Viability?