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.

Example Input: Context: To compare the efficacy and safety of prophylactic modalities for heterotopic ossification prevention after elbow and acetabular surgeries.', 'The retrospective chart review was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital and comprised record of patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation for elbow and acetabular fractures between 2010 and 2013. Data was classified into three groups: Group A patients had received single dose of radiotherapy; Group B patients had received indomethacin, and Group C patients had not received any prophylaxis. Outcome variables included time-to-fracture healing, heterotopic ossification, non-union and wound infection.', 'Of the 104patients 70(67.3%) had elbow fractures and 34(32.7%) had acetabular fractures. Out of the 70patients with elbow fractures, 28(27%) were in Group A, 24(23%) in Group B, and 18(17%) in Group C. In Group A, 4(22%) patients had wound infection compared to 1(5.5%) patient in Group C (p=0.131). One (4%) patient in Group B and 1(5.5%) in Group C developed heterotopic ossification (p=0.486). Non-union occurred in 1(4%) patient in Group B and 1(5.5%) in Group C. Out of the 34 patients with acetabular fractures, 11(32.3%) were in Group A, 10(29.4%) in Group B, and 13(38.2%) in Group C. In Group A, 2(18.2%) patients developed wound infection. Only 1(7.6%) patient in Group C developed heterotopic ossification.\Question: Do prophylaxis against heterotopic ossification after elbow and acetabular fractures - Do we really need it?
Example Output: No role of radiotherapy or indomethacin was detected in the prevention of heterotopic ossification.

Example 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?
Example 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.

Example Input: Context: Regulation of anabolic and catabolic factors is considered essential in maintaining the homoeostasis of healthy articular cartilage. In this study we investigated the influence of RNA binding proteins (RNABPs) in this process.', "Using small interfering RNA (siRNA), RNABP expression was knocked down in SW1353 chondrosarcoma cells and human articular chondrocytes. Gene expression and messenger RNA (mRNA) decay of anabolic (SOX9, Aggrecan) and catabolic (matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)13) factors were analysed using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). RNA-electromobility shift assays (EMSAs) were used to investigate RNABP interactions with the SOX9 mRNA 3' untranslated region (UTR). Immunohistochemical localisation of MMP13 and the RNABP human antigen R (HuR) was performed in E13.5 and E16.5 mouse embryo sections.", "SOX9 mRNA, mRNA half-life and protein expression were increased with siRNA targeting the RNABP tristetraprolin (TTP) in both HACs and SW1353s. TTP knockdown also stimulated aggrecan mRNA expression but did not affect its stability. RNA-EMSAs demonstrated that adenine uracil (AU)-rich elements in the SOX9 mRNA 3'UTR interacted with chondrocyte proteins with three specific elements interacting with TTP. HuR knockdown significantly increased MMP13 expression and also regulated the expression of a number of known transcriptional repressors of MMP13. HuR was ubiquitously expressed within mouse embryos yet displayed regional down-regulation within developing skeletal structures.\Question: Do rNA binding proteins regulate anabolic and catabolic gene expression in chondrocytes?
Example Output:
This study demonstrates for the first time how RNABPs are able to affect the balance of anabolic and catabolic gene expression in human chondrocytes. The post-transcriptional mechanisms controlled by RNABPs present novel avenues of regulation and potential points of intervention for controlling the expression of SOX9 and MMP13 in chondrocytes.