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.

Example Input: Context: To assess how different imputation methods used to account for missing variance data in primary studies influence tests of heterogeneity and pooled results from a meta-analysis with continuous outcomes.', 'Point and variance estimates for changes in serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure were variably reported among 48 primary longitudinal studies of living kidney donors (71%-78% of point estimates were reported, 8%-13% of variance data were reported). We compared the results of meta-analysis, which either were restricted to available data or used four methods to impute missing variance data. These methods used reported P-values, reported nonparametric summaries, results from other similar studies using multiple imputation, or results from estimated correlation coefficients.', 'Significant heterogeneity was present in all four outcomes regardless of the imputation methods applied. The random effects point estimates and 95% confidence intervals varied little across imputation methods, and the differences were not clinically significant.\Question: Do imputing variance estimates alter the conclusions of a meta-analysis with continuous outcomes : a case study of changes in renal function after living kidney donation?
Example Output: Different methods to impute the variance data in the primary studies did not alter the conclusions from this meta-analysis of continuous outcomes. Such reproducibility increases confidence in the results. However, as with most meta-analyses, there was no gold standard of truth, and results must be interpreted judiciously. The generalization of these findings to other meta-analyses, which differ in outcomes, missing data, or between-study heterogeneity, requires further consideration.

Example Input: Context: To elucidate the importance of hepatitis C Virus (HCV) genotype in HIV disease progression.', 'This study was conducted among 126 HIV/HCV co-infected drug users with a known interval of HIV seroconversion whose HCV genotype was known early in HIV infection. Both clinical progression (to AIDS) and immunological progression (to a CD4+ T-cell count of 200 x 10(6) cells/l) by HCV genotype were studied using Cox proportional hazards analysis.', 'The median duration of follow-up was 7.3 years [interquartile range (IQR), 4.6-10.1 years]. The majority of the HCV infections concerned genotype 1 and genotype 3; The distribution was: HCV type 1: 48%, HCV type 3: 34%, HCV type 4: 13%, multiple HCV types: 5%. Concurrent multiple infections consisted of HCV genotypes 1b+3a, 1b+4 and 3a+4. HCV genotype 1 and multiple HCV genotype infections were associated with faster immunological progression [hazard ratio (HR), 2.02; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-3.92 and HR, 2.74; 95% CI, 0.95-7.90, respectively]. Multiple HCV genotype infection was also associated with faster clinical progression (HR, 3.36; 95% CI, 0.82-13.79). These hazard ratios increased further and were all significant when analyses were limited to data in the pre-HAART era (HR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.51-10.20; HR, 4.38; 95% CI, 1.04-18.40 and HR, 6.54; 95% CI, 1.39-30.76, respectively).\Question: Is infection with concurrent multiple hepatitis C virus genotypes associated with faster HIV disease progression?
Example Output: HIV disease progression differs by HCV genotype and is especially faster in individuals whose HCV infection involves more than one HCV genotype. The effect of HCV genotype on HIV progression was greater in the pre-highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) era, suggesting that the effectiveness of HAART may diminish the effect of HCV genotype on HIV disease progression.

Example Input: Context: Hand warming and face warming, combined with inhalation of heated air, are reported to suppress shivering. However, hand or face temperature contributes only a few percent to control of shivering. Thus, it seems unlikely that manipulating hand or facial skin temperature alone would be sufficient to permit induction of therapeutic hypothermia. We tested the hypothesis that focal arm (forearm and hand) warming or lower facial warming, combined with inhalation of heated and humidified gas, only minimally reduces the shivering threshold (triggering core temperature).', 'We studied 8 healthy male volunteers (18 to 40 years of age) on 3 days: (1) control (no warming), (2) arm warming with forced air at approximately 43 degrees C, and (3) face warming with 21 L/min of air at approximately 42 degrees C at a relative humidity of 100%. Fluid at approximately 4 degrees C was infused via a central venous catheter to decrease tympanic membrane temperature 1 degrees C/h to 2 degrees C/h; mean skin temperature was maintained at 31 degrees C. A sustained increase in oxygen consumption quantified the shivering threshold.', 'Shivering thresholds did not differ significantly between the control (36.7+/-0.1 degrees C), arm-warming (36.5+/-0.3 degrees C), or face-warming (36.5+/-0.3 degrees C; analysis of variance, P=0.34) day. The study was powered to have a 95% probability of detecting a difference of 0.5+/-0.5 degrees C (mean+/-SD) between control and either of the 2 treatments at alpha=0.05.\Question: Does neither arm nor face warming reduce the shivering threshold in unanesthetized humans?
Example Output:
Focal arm or face warming did not substantially reduce the shivering threshold in unanesthetized volunteers. It thus seems unlikely that these nonpharmacological modalities will substantially facilitate induction of therapeutic hypothermia.