Given a passage, 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.

Ex Input:
To determine whether early enteral feeding in a septic intensive care unit (ICU) population, using a formula supplemented with arginine, mRNA, and omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil (Impact), improves clinical outcomes, when compared with a common use, high protein enteral feed without these nutrients.', 'A prospective, randomized, multicentered trial.', 'ICUs of six hospitals in Spain.', 'One hundred eighty-one septic patients (122 males, 59 females) presenting for enteral nutrition in an ICU.', 'Septic ICU patients with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores of > or =10 received either an enteral feed enriched with arginine, mRNA, and omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil (Impact), or a common use, high protein control feed (Precitene Hiperproteico).', 'One hundred seventy-six (89 Impact patients, 87 control subjects) were eligible for intention-to-treat analysis. The mortality rate was reduced for the treatment group compared with the control group (17 of 89 vs. 28 of 87; p < .05). Bacteremias were reduced in the treatment group (7 of 89 vs. 19 of 87; p = .01) as well as the number of patients with more than one nosocomial infection (5 of 89 vs. 17 of 87; p = .01). The benefit in mortality rate for the treatment group was more pronounced for patients with APACHE II scores between 10 and 15 (1 of 26 vs. 8 of 29; p = .02).

Ex Output:
Does an immune-enhancing enteral diet reduce mortality rate and episodes of bacteremia in septic intensive care unit patients?


Ex Input:
The current American Joint Committee on Cancer Seventh Edition (AJCC7) pathologic staging for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is derived from data assessing the outcomes of patients having undergone esophagectomy without neoadjuvant treatment and has unclear significance in patients who have received multimodality therapy. Lymph nodes with evidence of neoadjuvant treatment effect without residual cancer cells may be observed and are not traditionally considered in pathologic reports, but may have prognostic significance.', 'All patients who underwent esophagectomy after completing neoadjuvant therapy for EAC at our institution between 2006 and 2012 were reviewed. Slides of pathologic specimens were reexamined for locoregional treatment-response nodes lacking viable cancer cells but with evidence of acellular mucin pools, central fibrosis, necrosis, or calcifications suggesting prior tumor involvement. Kaplan-Meier survival functions were estimated, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare staging models.', 'Ninety patients (82 men) underwent esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy for EAC (mean age, 61.8 ± 8.9 years). All patients received preoperative chemotherapy, and 50 patients also underwent preoperative radiotherapy. Median Kaplan-Meier survival was 55.6 months, and 5-year survival was 35% (95% confidence interval, 19% to 62%). A total of 100 treatment-response nodes were found in 38 patients. For patients with limited nodal disease (62 ypN0-N1), the presence of treatment-response nodes was associated with significantly worse survival (p = 0.03) compared with patients lacking such nodes. Adjusting for patient age and AJCC7 pathologic stage showed the presence of treatment-response nodes significantly increased the risk of death (hazard ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 6.9; p = 0.04). When stage-adjusted survival was modeled, counting treatment-response nodes as positive nodes offered a better model fit than ignoring them.

Ex Output:
Is neoadjuvant treatment response in negative nodes an important prognosticator after esophagectomy?


Ex Input:
To review the publication fate of abstracts presented at dental conferences and investigate the association between full publication proportion (FPP) and abstract characteristics, conference characteristics, and methodological quality of primary studies.', 'PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched up to November 2014 for studies that reported at least one FPP of abstracts presented at dental conferences, with a follow-up length of no less than 48\xa0months.', 'Sixteen studies involving 10,365 abstracts presented at 52 conferences were included. The pooled FPP was 29.62% (95% confidence interval: 22.90%, 36.81%) for all presented abstracts and 51.97% (95% confidence interval: 43.19%, 60.70%) for randomized controlled trial abstracts. Abstract characteristics significantly associated with higher FPP included reporting of statistical analysis (P\xa0<\xa00.001), oral presentation (P\xa0<\xa00.001), basic science research (P\xa0=\xa00.047), and reporting of financial support (P\xa0=\xa00.009). Abstracts with positive (P\xa0=\xa00.29) or statistically significant results (P\xa0=\xa00.33) were not published more often than negative or nonsignificant results, respectively. In multivariable meta-regression analysis, conferences held in Asia (P\xa0<\xa00.001) and at a continental rather than national level (P\xa0<\xa00.001) were significantly associated with higher FPP.

Ex Output:

Are thirty percent of abstracts presented at dental conferences published in full : a systematic review?