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.

Input: Consider Input: Context: To establish a novel approach for quick and high throughput verification of human gene imprinting.', "By use of a pair of dye-labeled probes, 5' nuclease assay was combined with reverse transcriptase-PCR(RT-PCR) to genotype a coding single nucleotide polymorphism (cSNP), rs705(C/T) of a known imprinted gene, small nuclear ribonucleotide protein N (SNRPN), on both genomic DNA and cDNA of human lymphoblast cell lines.", 'Allele discrimination showed a clear monoallelic expression pattern of SNRPN, which was confirmed by RT-PCR based restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Pedigree analysis verified the paternal origin of expressed allele, which is in consistency with previous report.
Answer: Coding SNP is an ideal marker for detecting gene imprinting by 5' nuclease assay. This approach has also a potentiality to discover differential allele expression of non-imprinted genes in order to find gene cis-acting functional polymorphism.

Output: Is [ Coding single nucleotide polymorphism an ideal marker for detecting gene imprinting by 5 ' nuclease assay ]?


Input: Consider Input: Context: Studies that investigate the subjective benefit from a bone conduction implant (BCI) sound processor in patients with single-sided sensorineural deafness (SSD) have been limited to examining short- and mid-term benefit. In the current study, we performed a survey among 44 SSD BCI users with a median follow-up time of 50 months.', 'Forty-four experienced SSD BCI users participated in the survey, which consisted of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, the Single-Sided Deafness Questionnaire, the Short Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults, and a self-made user questionnaire. For patients with tinnitus, the Tinnitus Questionnaire was also completed. The results of the survey were correlated with contralateral hearing loss, age at implantation, duration of the hearing loss at the time of implantation, duration of BCI use, and the presence and burden of tinnitus.', 'In total, 86% of the patients still used their sound processor. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit and the Short Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults show a statistically significant overall improvement with the BCI. The Single-Sided Deafness Questionnaire and the user questionnaire showed that almost 40% of the patients reported daily use of the sound processor. However, the survey of daily use reveals benefit only in certain circumstances. Speech understanding in noisy situations is rated rather low, and 58% of all patients reported that their BCI benefit was less than expected.
Answer: The majority of the patients reported an overall improvement from using their BCI. However, the number of users decreases during a longer follow-up time and patients get less enthusiastic about the device after an extended period of use, especially in noisy situations. However, diminished satisfaction because of time-related reductions in processor function could not be ruled out.

Output: Do long-term subjective benefit with a bone conduction implant sound processor in 44 patients with single-sided deafness?


Input: Consider Input: Context: To investigate whether our practice of specialist review of all diagnostic biopsies was necessary to prevent misgrading of referred prostate cancer patients, and whether this misclassification, if any, would have resulted in misclassification of clinical risk grouping (Seattle Risk Grouping [SRG]) and subsequent treatment strategy and prognosis.', 'Important prognostic indicators for prostate cancer include the presenting prostate-specific antigen (PSA), clinical stage and Gleason sum of the tumour. These three variables are incorporated into the SRG cohorts to establish treatment strategy. Patients with prostate cancer referred for brachytherapy had their prostate biopsies reviewed by a reference pathologist (PD) with a special interest in prostate cancer. We compared the agreement between the scoring of the referring pathologists with that of PD, and evaluated if any differences changed the SRG and therefore the clinical risk and treatment strategy for the patients.', "In only 52% (43/83) of cases, was there total agreement between the two sets of pathologists. The inter-rater agreement was statistically 'fair' (unweighted kappa statistic 0.27). In 90% (36/40) of cases with disagreement, PD assigned higher Gleason sums. In 40% (16/40) of cases with disagreement, the change in Gleason sum altered the SRG; in one out of 16 cases, the SRG was downgraded from 'intermediate' to 'low' risk disease; in six out of 16 cases, it was upgraded from 'low' to 'intermediate' risk, and, in nine out of 16, from 'intermediate' to 'high' risk.
Answer: Our findings confirm previous reports of only limited correlation between pathologists in reporting Gleason sums. In this study, 19% (16/83) of cases had their grading changed to a level that altered clinical risk, almost always (94%; 15/16) to one that worsened prognosis. This would have significantly affected treatment strategy for these patients, and thus we recommend that all centres ensure accurate Gleason grading by the use of pathologists with special interests in prostate cancer.


Output: Does gleason scoring vary among pathologists and this affects clinical risk in patients with prostate cancer?