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: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) endotoxemia and enteral arginine (ARG) supplementation on intestinal structural changes, enterocyte proliferation, and apoptosis in rat.', 'Male Sprague-Dawley rats, weighing 250-280 g, were divided into three experimental groups: control rats, LPS rats treated with lipopolysaccharide given ip at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 24 h (two injections), and LPS-ARG rats treated with enteral arginine given in drinking water (2%) 72 h before and following injection of LPS. Intestinal structural changes, enterocyte proliferation, and enterocyte apoptosis were determined on day 3 following the first LPS injection.', 'LPS rats demonstrated a significant decrease in bowel weight in duodenum, mucosal weight in duodenum, jejunum, and ileum, mucosal DNA and protein in jejunum and ileum, and villus height in jejunum and ileum compared to control animals. LPS rats also had a significantly lower cell proliferation index in jejunum and ileum and a higher apoptotic index in jejunum and ileum compared to control rats. LPS-ARG animals demonstrated greater duodenal bowel weight, duodenal and ileal mucosal weight, ileal mucosal DNA and protein, ileal villus height, and jejunal and ileal cell proliferation index compared to LPS animals.\Question: Does oral arginine reduce gut mucosal injury caused by lipopolysaccharide endotoxemia in rat?

Output: LPS endotoxemia impairs the integrity of the gastrointestinal mucosa in rat. Decreased cell proliferation and increased apoptosis may be considered the main mechanisms responsible for the decreased cell mass. Enteral arginine administration decreases the mucosal injury caused by lipopolysaccharide.


Input: Consider Input: Context: Therapeutic and prophylactic vena cava filters (VCFs) are used to prevent pulmonary embolism. Concerns exist over placing a permanent filter in a young trauma patient. Recently, retrievable VCFs have become available. One such filter is the OptEase, which has a recommended time of removal of up to 23 days after insertion. Data supporting this recommendation are sparse. Many trauma patients will need filters for more than 2 weeks, and there are no data evaluating the safety of removal after extended time periods. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety, feasibility, and reaction of the vena cava when removing the OptEase retrievable VCF at different time intervals.', 'Twenty Yorkshire cross pigs (80-113 kg) underwent general anesthesia with tiletamine and zolazepam. Filters were placed in the infrarenal vena cava (VC) through the femoral vein under fluoroscopic guidance. Animals were then divided into four groups. In group 1, filters were removed at 14 days; in group 2, at 30 days; in group 3, at 60 days; and in group 4, at 90 days. Removal was attempted using a snare-and-sheath technique through the femoral vein. Animals with successful filter removal were allowed to recover; then, the animals underwent autopsy (gross and microscopic VC examination) 2 months later. Animals with unsuccessful filter removal underwent autopsy immediately after attempted removal. Venacavograms were taken at filter insertion, at removal, and before autopsy to evaluate any VC abnormalities.', 'Successful removal of the filter in all five pigs (100%) was reliably performed only in the 14-day group. In this group, the initial VC transverse diameter was 19.4 +/- 0.8 mm and was significantly reduced to 9.8 +/- 1.1 mm (p < 0.05) immediately after removal. Sixty days later, before autopsy, VC diameter had increased to 15.3 +/- 1.9 mm, which was significantly larger than at removal (p < 0.05) but not different from the initial value. In the 30-day group, removal was successful in only one of five animals. Although removal was successful in the one pig, autopsy at 2 months postremoval revealed total occlusion of the VC. Filters could not be removed from 60- and 90-day groups. At autopsy, the VCF struts were embedded or protruded through the VC wall. Microscopic examination of the VC revealed significant scarring underneath and between the struts.\Question: Is removal of the OptEase retrievable vena cava filter feasible after extended time periods because of filter protrusion through the vena cava?

Output: Removal of the retrievable OptEase VCF may be successfully performed up to 14 days after insertion. Strut protrusion through the VC wall prohibited successful and safe removal at extended time intervals.


Input: Consider Input: Context: To measure the through-focus curve for eyes implanted with a type 1 Boston keratoprosthesis (KPro) and compare it to that of pseudophakic controls with fixed pupil sizes. The results should assist in evaluating postoperative visual quality after surgery. They should also help to determine the necessary KPro inventories in terms of refractive power steps.', 'Autorefraction and manifest refraction were performed on all eyes. The monocular through-focus acuity curve was plotted in reference to the best-corrected visual acuity by spectacle plane defocus ranging from +5.00 to -5.00\xa0dioptres in 0.50\xa0dioptre increments. These measurements were obtained on KPro-implanted eyes, pseudophakic eyes as controls, and on the same control eyes after fixing the pupil diameter to 3 and 2\xa0mm using black painted iris contact lenses.', 'Ten KPro eyes and five control eyes were included. Good agreement was noted between the subjective refractions and autorefraction in KPro eyes. The average through-focus curve for the control eyes was significantly steeper than that of the KPro curve, but became comparable after fixing the control pupil to 2 and 3\xa0mm.\Question: Does the Boston keratoprosthesis provide a wide depth of focus?


Output: The KPro's wide depth-of-focus makes the visual acuity less dependent on an exact refractive correction at distance and explains the 'pseudoaccomodation' experienced by these patients. This is primarily due to the small pupil diameter of the KPro. The current manufacturing steps in 0.50 dioptre increments appears to be sufficient.