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.

Ex Input:
Context: No formal assessment of life expectancy in women with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in these genes has been reported previously. We have evaluated life expectancy using actuarial analysis and assessed the effect of breast and ovarian cancers on premature death in >1,000 BRCA1/2 carriers.', 'Families with pathogenic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have been ascertained in a 10-million population region of United Kingdom since 1996. Mutation carriers and their first-degree relatives were used in an analysis of breast and ovarian cancer incidence and mortality as well as to derive and compare an actuarial assessment of life expectancy.', 'Six hundred twelve BRCA1 and 482 BRCA2 female mutation carriers were identified from 482 families. Life expectancy was significantly reduced for BRCA1 carriers compared with BRCA2 (P = 0.0002). This effect was attributable to an increased death rate from ovarian cancer (P = 0.04). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a better long-term survival from early-stage ovarian cancer in BRCA2 carriers but no significant differences in deaths from breast cancer or from women presenting with late-stage ovarian cancer. There was no other major contributing cause to death other than breast/ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2 female carriers.\Question: Is better life expectancy in women with BRCA2 compared with BRCA1 mutations attributable to lower frequency and later onset of ovarian cancer?

Ex Output:
Interventions to reduce ovarian cancer incidence are likely to have a greater effect on life expectancy in BRCA1 compared with BRCA2 carriers.


Ex Input:
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?

Ex Output:
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.


Ex Input:
Context: The LAP Mentor is a procedural simulator that provides a stepwise training for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study addresses its "construct" validity that is present when a simulator is able to discriminate between persons with known differences in performance level on the laparoscopic cholecystectomy in real life.', 'Three groups with different skill levels performed 2 trials of 4 distinct parts of the cholecystectomy procedure (cholecystectomy exercises) and 1 full procedure on the LAP Mentor. Assessment parameters concerning the quantity and the quality of performance were compared between groups using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.', 'The entire research was performed in the Center for Surgical Technologies, Leuven, Belgium.', 'For study purposes, 5 expert abdominal laparoscopists (>100 laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed), 11 surgical residents (10-30 cholecystectomies performed), and 10 novices (minimal laparoscopic experience) were recruited.', 'With regard to the quantity of performance (time needed and number of movements), the experts showed significantly better results compared with the novices in the cholecystectomy exercises. Only in the full procedure, the results of all the parameters (except speed) were significantly different between the 3 groups, with the best results observed for the experts and worst for the novices. With respect to quality of performance, only the parameter "accuracy rate of dissection" in exercise 3 showed significantly better performance by the experts.\Question: Does assessment of procedural skills using virtual simulation remain a challenge?

Ex Output:

Only the full procedure of the LAP Mentor procedural simulator has enough discriminative power to claim construct validity. However, the lack of quality control, which is indispensible in the evaluation of procedural skills, makes it currently unsuited for the assessment of procedural laparoscopic skills. The role of the simulator in a training context remains to be elucidated.