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 Q]: Context: To determine whether fertilization rate serves as a biological assay, reflects oocyte quality, and may be used to help predict patient implantation rate.', 'Retrospective cohort study.', 'Academic center.', 'Couples undergoing 3603 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles from 2001 to 2007.', 'None.', 'We compared the implantation rate among cycles with high versus low fertilization rate. Univariate analyses were performed to determine the association of implantation rate with potential confounding variables: age, day-3 follicle-stimulating hormone level, day-3 estradiol level, antral follicle count, oocyte number, cycle attempts, embryo grading, and number of embryos transferred. Multivariate analysis was then performed to determine whether the fertilization rate remained an independent predictor.', 'Cutoffs for fertilization rate were 50% for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and 75% for conventional insemination. Higher ICSI fertilization was statistically significantly associated with the implantation rate (25.2% vs. 17.8 %). After adjusting for variables associated with implantation rate, fertilization rate for ICSI remained a strong independent predictor of implantation. Higher conventional insemination fertilization was statistically significantly associated with implantation (32.1% vs. 25.7%) and remained a statistically significant predictor after adjustment.\Question: Is fertilization rate an independent predictor of implantation rate?
[EX A]: Fertilization is a strong, independent predictor of implantation rate and may be useful in modeling to guide decision making for the number of embryos to transfer.

[EX Q]: Context: With the advent of new and more efficient anti-androgen drugs targeting androgen receptor (AR) in breast cancer (BC) is becoming an increasingly important area of investigation. This would potentially be most useful in triple negative BC (TNBC), where better therapies are still needed. The assessment of AR status is generally performed on the primary tumor even if the tumor has already metastasized. Very little is known regarding discrepancies of AR status during tumor progression. To determine the prevalence of AR positivity, with emphasis on TNBCs, and to investigate AR status during tumor progression, we evaluated a large series of primary BCs and matching metastases and recurrences.', 'AR status was performed on 356 primary BCs, 135 matching metastases, and 12 recurrences using a next-generation Tissue Microarray (ngTMA). A commercially available AR antibody was used to determine AR-status by immunohistochemistry. AR positivity was defined as any nuclear staining in tumor cells ≥1 %. AR expression was correlated with pathological tumor features of the primary tumor. Additionally, the concordance rate of AR expression between the different tumor sites was determined.', 'AR status was positive in: 87 % (307/353) of primary tumors, 86.1 % (105/122) of metastases, and in 66.7 % (8/12) of recurrences. TNBC tested positive in 11.4 %, (4/35) of BCs. A discrepant result was seen in 4.3 % (5/117) of primary BC and matching lymph node (LN) metastases. Three AR negative primary BCs were positive in the matching LN metastasis, representing 17.6 % of all negative BCs with lymph node metastases (3/17). Two AR positive primary BCs were negative in the matching LN metastasis, representing 2.0 % of all AR positive BCs with LN metastases (2/100). No discrepancies were seen between primary BC and distant metastases or recurrence (n\u2009=\u200917).\Question: Is androgen receptor status highly conserved during tumor progression of breast cancer?
[EX A]: Most primary (87 %) and metastasized (86.1 %) BCs are AR positive including a significant fraction of TNBCs (11.4 %). Further, AR status is highly conserved during tumor progression and a change only occurs in a small fraction (4.1 %). Our study supports the notion that targeting AR could be effective for many BC patients and that re-testing of AR status in formerly negative or mixed type BC's is recommended.

[EX Q]: Context: To assess the impact of providing research feedback to retinoblastoma survivors or their parents regarding the risk of second cancers.', 'A four-page survey was sent to 801 retinoblastoma survivors and 55 parents to ascertain their reactions to a "results-letter." The "results-letter" provided feedback from a study indicating that retinoblastoma survivors may be at increased risk of second cancers.', 'Three hundred and thirty-nine (339) retinoblastoma survivors and 43 parents responded to the survey. Eighty-four percent (84%) of respondents found the "results-letter" "very" to "extremely" understandable and 72% found it "very" to "extremely" useful. Participants scored "very" to "extremely" to the following emotions: frightened = 28%, anxious = 27%, sad = 25%, overwhelmed = 15%, angry = 11%, and guilty = 6%. Five (1.4%) respondents stated that they would have preferred not to receive the results. Responses did not vary significantly between survivors with different risks of second cancers. No significant differences were observed between males and females. However, parents were significantly more likely to report feelings of anxiety, guilt, anger, being overwhelmed, and frightened compared to adult retinoblastoma survivors (P < 0.05). Individuals with less than a college education were significantly more sad, angry, overwhelmed, and frightened by the information than individuals with a college degree or higher (P < 0.05). Eighteen percent (18%) of all respondents shared the feedback with their physician. The method of choice for receiving results was by letter with contact names and phone numbers.\Question: Does impact on survivors of retinoblastoma when informed of study result on risk of second cancers?
[EX A]:
These findings indicate that research participants want feedback even when the information is upsetting. Additional studies are needed to identify individuals who experience greater levels of distress following feedback in an attempt to provide improved methods of feedback and support.