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: Coinfection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) is present in one-third of all human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals in the United States and is associated with rapid progression of liver fibrosis and poor response to pegylated interferon (IFN) and ribavirin. In this study we examined gene expression profiles in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from different groups of individuals who are monoinfected or coinfected with HIV and HCV. Data showed that HIV and HCV viremia up-regulate genes associated with immune activation and immunoregulatory pathways. HCV viremia is also associated with abnormalities in all peripheral immune cells, suggesting a global effect of HCV on the immune system. Interferon-alpha-induced genes were expressed at a higher level in PBMCs from HIV-infected individuals. HCV and HIV infections leave distinct profiles or gene expression of immune activation in PBMCs. HIV viremia induces an immune activated state; by comparison, HCV infection induces immunoregulatory and proinflammatory pathways that may contribute to progression of liver fibrosis.
Answer: An aberrant type-I IFN response seen exclusively in HIV-infected individuals could be responsible for the poor therapeutic response experienced by HIV/HCV coinfected individuals receiving interferon-alpha-based current standard of care.

Output: Do human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C infections induce distinct immunologic imprints in peripheral mononuclear cells?


Input: Consider Input: Context: A patient with a suspected cervical spine injury may be at risk for secondary neurologic injury when initially placed and repositioned to the center of the spine board.', 'We sought to determine which centering adjustment best limits cervical spine movement and minimizes the chance for secondary injury.', 'Using five lightly embalmed cadaveric specimens with a created global instability at C5-C6, motion sensors were anchored to the anterior surface of the vertebral bodies. Three repositioning methods were used to center the cadavers on the spine board: horizontal slide, diagonal slide, and V-adjustment. An electromagnetic tracking device measured angular (degrees) and translation (millimeters) motions at the C5-C6 level during each of the three centering adjustments. The dependent variables were angular motion (flexion-extension, axial rotation, lateral flexion) and translational displacement (anteroposterior, axial, and medial-lateral).', 'The nonuniform condition produced significantly less flexion-extension than the uniform condition (p\xa0=\xa00.048). The horizontal slide adjustment produced less cervical flexion-extension (p\xa0=\xa00.015), lateral bending (p\xa0=\xa00.003), and axial rotation (p\xa0=\xa00.034) than the V-adjustment. Similarly, translation was significantly less with the horizontal adjustment than with the V-adjustment; medial-lateral (p\xa0=\xa00.017), axial (p\xa0<\xa00.001), and anteroposterior (p\xa0=\xa00.006).
Answer: Of the three adjustments, our team found that horizontal slide was also easier to complete than the other methods. The horizontal slide best limited cervical spine motion and may be the most helpful for minimizing secondary injury based on the study findings.

Output: Does horizontal Slide create Less Cervical Motion When Centering an Injured Patient on a Spine Board?


Input: Consider Input: Context: Our trauma service recently transitioned from a pulmonary intensive care unit (ICU) service to a surgical ICU (SICU) service. We hypothesized that a newly formed SICU service could provide comparable outcomes to the existing pulmonary ICU service. A specific aim of this study was to compare outcomes of trauma patients admitted to the ICU before and after implementation of a SICU service.', 'We performed a retrospective study of trauma patients admitted to the ICU of our urban, American College of Surgeons- verified, Level 1 trauma center during a 4-year period (2009-2012). Patients managed by the pulmonary ICU service (2009-2010) were compared with patients managed by a SICU service (2011-2012). The primary outcome was mortality, while secondary outcomes included complications (pulmonary, infectious, cardiac, and thromboembolic), hospital and ICU length of stay, ventilator days, and need for reintubation.', 'There were 2,253 trauma patients admitted to the ICU during the study period, 1,124 and 1,129 managed by the pulmonary ICU and SICU services, respectively. When comparing outcomes for SICU and pulmonary ICU patients, there was no difference in mortality (11% vs. 13%, p = 0.41), but patients managed by the SICU service had fewer pulmonary complications (3% vs. 6%, p < 0.001), fewer days on the ventilator (3 vs. 4, p = 0.002), and less often required reintubation after extubation (4% vs. 9%, p < 0.001).
Answer: Transition from a pulmonary ICU service to a SICU service at our institution was associated with no change in mortality but an improvement in pulmonary complications, ventilator days, and reintubation rates. Trauma centers currently staffed with a pulmonary ICU service should feel comfortable converting to SICU service and should expect comparable or improved outcomes for trauma patients admitted to the ICU.


Output: Is implementation of a surgical intensive care unit service associated with improved outcomes for trauma patients?