Given a passage, 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: Renal ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) injury may occur after renal transplantation, thoracoabdominal aortic surgery, and renal artery interventions.', 'To investigate the therapeutic effects of aprotinin on tissue protection against I/R injury in a rat model. N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a potent antioxidant, was also tested to assess the experimental model.', 'Twenty-four rats were categorized into 3 groups of 8 rats each: those receiving isotonic sodium chloride solution (control group); NAC, 150 mg/kg; and aprotinin, 40,000 KIU/kg. The animals underwent unilateral nephrectomy after 60 minutes of warm ischemia and 60 minutes of reperfusion of the kidney. Malondialdehyde, a lipid peroxidation marker, and antioxidant glutathione levels were measured in the kidney parenchyma. Tissue samples were obtained for histologic analysis.', 'Compared with the control group, the NAC group demonstrated significantly low levels of malondialdehyde (P = .04) and high levels of glutathione (P = .01). At histopathologic analysis, less acute tubular necrosis (ATN) and cellular swelling was noted in the NAC group (P = .002 and P = .005, respectively). In the aprotinin group, histopathologic analysis revealed less tissue damage in terms of ATN (P < .001, cellular swelling (P < .001), and vacuolysis (P = .002). Compared with the NAC group, ATN (P = .01), vacuolysis (P = .04), and congestion (P = .05) were significantly less in the aprotinin group.
Example Output: Does serine protease inhibitor aprotinin ameliorate renal injury in a rat model of ischemia-perfusion injury?

Example Input: There is no consensus about the ideal method for diagnosis in patients who have already undergone endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and the inconclusive material is often obtained. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of the second EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions.', 'A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients with EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions is performed. All patients who underwent more than one EUS-FNA for the evaluation of suspected pancreatic cancer over a 7-year period were included in the analysis.', 'A total of 296 EUS-FNAs of the pancreas were performed in 257 patients. The diagnostic yield with the first EUS-FNA was 78.6% (202/257). Thirty-nine (13.3%) FNAs were repeated in 34 patients; 17 (50%) patients were women. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 58.8 ± 16.1 years. The location of the lesions in the pancreatic gland, from which the second biopsies were taken, was head of the pancreas, n = 28 (82.4%), body of the pancreas, n = 3 (8.8%), and tail, n = 3 (8.8%). The mean ± SD of the size of the lesion was 36.3 ± 14.6 mm. The second EUS-FNA was more likely to be positive for diagnosis in patients with an "atypical" histological result in the first EUS-FNA (odds ratio [OR]: 4.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-18.3), in contrast to patients with a first EUS-FNA reported as "normal" (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06-0.71). Overall, the diagnostic yield of the second EUS-FNA was 58.8% (20/34) with an increase to 86.3% overall (222/257).
Example Output: Is repeat endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration after a first negative procedure useful in pancreatic lesions?

Example Input: While some studies have shown that physicians with healthy personal habits are especially likely to discuss prevention with their patients, to our knowledge no one has published information testing whether physician credibility and patient motivation to adopt healthier habits are enhanced by physician's disclosures of their own healthy behaviors.", 'Two brief health education videos about improving diet and exercise were produced and shown to subjects (n1 = 66, n2 = 65) in an Emory University general medical clinic waiting room in Atlanta, Ga. In one video, the physician revealed an additional half minute of information about her personal healthy dietary and exercise practices and had a bike helmet and an apple visible on her desk (physician-disclosure video). In the other video, discussion of personal practices and the apple and bike helmet were not included (control video).', 'Viewers of the physician-disclosure video considered the physician to be generally healthier, some-what more believable, and more motivating than did viewers of the control video. They also rated this physician to be specifically more believable and motivating regarding exercise and diet (P < or = .001).
Example Output:
Does physician disclosure of healthy personal behaviors improve credibility and ability to motivate?