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:
This longitudinal study had three aims: 1) determine the extent to which boys at high average risk and low average risk for substance use disorder differ on a construct of neurobehavioral disinhibition, 2) evaluate the capacity of neurobehavioral disinhibition to predict substance use frequency at age 16, and 3) demonstrate the utility of neurobehavioral disinhibition in predicting substance use disorder.', 'The authors derived an index of neurobehavioral disinhibition from measures of affect, behavior, and cognition. The neurobehavioral disinhibition score was used to discriminate youth at high and low average risk for substance use disorder and to predict substance use frequency after 4-6 years and substance use disorder after 7-9 years.', 'The neurobehavioral disorder score significantly discriminated boys at high average risk from those at low average risk at ages 10-12. Neurobehavioral disinhibition at age 16, in conjunction with substance use frequency and risk status group, predicted substance use disorder at age 19 with 85% accuracy and accounted for 50% of the variance in Drug Use Screening Inventory overall problem density score. Neurobehavioral disinhibition was a stronger predictor of substance use disorder (odds ratio=6.83) than substance consumption frequency (odds ratio=3.19).

Ex Output:
Does neurobehavioral disinhibition in childhood predict early age at onset of substance use disorder?


Ex Input:
Fish oil (FO) supplementation prevents the development of obesity and insulin resistance, and upregulate the expression of UCP3 in skeletal muscle in rodents. This may represent indirect evidence that FO promotes fat oxidation and/or alter energy efficiency. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether such effects can be observed in humans. The metabolic effects of FO were assessed during exercise in order to obtain a direct measurement of energy efficiency.', 'Eight healthy male volunteers were studied with and without supplementation with 7.2 g/day FO (including 1.1 g/day eicosopentaenoic acid and 0.7 g/day decosahexaenoic acid) during 14 days. Their VO(2 max) was measured on cycle ergometer. Thereafter, energy metabolism (substrate oxidation, energy expenditure and energy efficiency) was assessed during a 30 min cycling exercise at 50% VO(2 max) performed 2 h 30 after a standardized, high carbohydrate breakfast.', 'VO(2 max) was 38.6+/-2.2 after FO and 38.4+/-2.0 (mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) in control conditions (NS). Basal plasma glucose, insulin and NEFA concentrations, and energy metabolism were similar with FO and in controls. During exercise, the increases in plasma NEFA concentrations, energy expenditure, glucose and lipid oxidation, and the decreases in glycaemia and insulinemia were not altered by FO intake. Energy efficiency was 22.4+/-0.6% after FO vs 21.8+/-0.7% in controls. In order to ascertain that the absence of effects of FO was not due to consumption of a carbohydrate meal immediately before exercise, 4 of the 8 subjects were re-studied in fasting conditions, FO also failed to alter energy efficiency in this subset of studies.

Ex Output:
Does fish oil supplementation alter energy efficiency in healthy males?


Ex Input:
The aim was to assess the effect of population-based mammography screening on treatment costs for fatal breast cancer in Turku, Finland.', 'The study included 556 women with invasive breast cancer, diagnosed at the age of 40-74 years in 1987-1993: 427 in the screened group (screen-detected or interval cancer) and 129 in the unscreened group (not yet invited or refused screening). Both groups were followed up for 8 years from diagnosis.', 'In the unscreened group, 32 (25%) patients died of breast cancer versus 49 (12%) in the screened group (p < 0.001). The non-discounted mean treatment costs were 2.8-fold for those dying of breast cancer compared to survivors: 26,222 euros versus 9,434 euros; the difference between means was 16,788 euros (95% CI 14,915-18,660) (p<0.001). The mean costs for fatal cases were high, irrespective of the way cancer was detected: 23,800 euros in the unscreened group versus 27,803 euros in the screened group; the difference between means was -4,003 euros (-10,810 to 2802) (p=0.245). In the unscreened group, patients with fatal breast cancer accounted for 41% (0.76/1.87 million euros) of the total treatment costs versus 29% (1.36/4.76 million euros) in the screened group. It was estimated that about one third of costs for fatal breast cancer were avoided through mammography screening, accounting for 72-81% of the estimated total treatment cost savings achieved by screening. About 31-35% of the screening costs for 1987 to 1993 were offset by savings in treatment costs.

Ex Output:

Does population-based mammography screening result in substantial savings in treatment costs for fatal breast cancer?