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.

Q: Context: The objective of the present study was to investigate the relationship between colorectal and prostate cancer.', 'All Victorian men who developed metachronous colorectal and prostate cancer with the first primary diagnosed between 1982 and 1993 were identified retrospectively from the Victorian Cancer Registry and were followed up to the end of 1995. Analyses were stratified by age group and years of follow up. The cause of death in those men who had prostate cancer following colorectal cancer was determined. The stage of colorectal cancer was compared between men with and without second primary prostate cancer and the grade of prostate cancer was compared with men who did not have a prior colorectal cancer.', 'Men who develop colorectal cancer are at increased risk of prostate cancer, with the greatest risk in men under the age of 65 (Relative risk approximately 2). Men with first primary colorectal cancer are more likely to develop prostate cancer than colorectal second primaries, and men who develop second primary prostate cancer are more likely to die of prostate cancer than colorectal cancer.\Question: Are men with colorectal cancer predisposed to prostate cancer?

A: Younger men diagnosed with colorectal cancer are at increased risk of prostate cancer. However, there is no direct evidence that screening for prostate cancer leads to a reduction in mortality. This should be considered when discussing long-term follow up.
****
Q: 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?

A: 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.
****
Q: Context: Patient care decisions demand high-quality research. To assist those decisions, numerous observational studies are being performed. Are the standards and guidelines to assess observational studies consistent and actionable? What policy considerations should be considered to ensure decision makers can determine if an observational study is of high-quality and valid to inform treatment decisions?', 'Based on a literature review and input from six experts, we compared and contrasted nine standards/guidelines using 23 methodological elements involved in observational studies (e.g., study protocol, data analysis, and so forth).', 'Fourteen elements (61%) were addressed by at least seven standards/guidelines; 12 of these elements disagreed in the approach. Nine elements (39%) were addressed by six or fewer standards/guidelines. Ten elements (43%) were not actionable in at least one standard/guideline that addressed the element.\Question: Is standards and guidelines for observational studies : quality in the eye of the beholder?

A:
The lack of observational study standard/guideline agreement may contribute to variation in study conduct; disparities in what is considered credible research; and ultimately, what evidence is adopted. A common set of agreed on standards/guidelines for conducting observational studies will benefit funders, researchers, journal editors, and decision makers.
****