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.

Input: Consider Input: Context: We have previously demonstrated that hypertonic saline (HS) resuscitation decreased inflammation and mucosal injury after mesenteric ischemia/reperfusion (I/R). In contrast to I/R cell necrosis, apoptosis provides controlled cell death that minimizes inflammation. We therefore hypothesized that HS resuscitation after mesenteric I/R would induce apoptosis and decrease mucosal injury.', "Rats underwent 60 minutes of superior mesenteric artery occlusion (SMAO) and then received no resuscitation or resuscitation with 4 mL/kg of HS, 4 mL/kg of lactated Ringer's (LR) solution (equal volume), or 32 mL/kg of LR solution (equal salt load). Rats were killed at 6 hours of reperfusion, and ileum was harvested for analysis. DNA fragmentation (apoptosis) was assessed by terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP-biotin nick end-labeling (TUNEL) and mucosal injury by histology (Chiu score 0-5). Caspase-3 (proapoptotic mediator) and Bcl-xL (antiapoptotic mediator) protein expression were analyzed by Western immunoblot.", 'SMAO with no resuscitation, SMAO with 4 mL/kg of LR, and SMAO with 32 mL/kg of LR increased apoptosis (quantitated by TUNEL) and I/R-induced mucosal injury (quantitated by Chiu score). This was associated with an increase to similar levels in both proapoptotic caspase-3 and antiapoptotic Bcl-xL protein expression. Moreover, SMAO with 4 mL/kg of HS further increased apoptosis but decreased mucosal injury. This was associated with a differential expression of proapoptotic caspase-3 over antiapoptotic Bcl-xL.\Question: Does hypertonic saline resuscitation after mesenteric ischemia/reperfusion induce ileal apoptosis?

Output: HS resuscitation after mesenteric I/R significantly increased ileal mucosal apoptosis while decreasing mucosal injury and may represent a novel mechanism by which HS resuscitation after mesenteric I/R reduces inflammation and imparts protection to the gut.


Input: Consider Input: Context: Previous study in human subjects has documented biomechanical and neurophysiological responses to impulsive spinal manipulative thrusts, but very little is known about the neuromechanical effects of varying thrust force-time profiles.', 'Ten adolescent Merino sheep were anesthetized and posteroanterior mechanical thrusts were applied to the L3 spinous process using a computer-controlled, mechanical testing apparatus. Three variable pulse durations (10, 100, 200 ms, force = 80 N) and three variable force amplitudes (20, 40, 60 N, pulse duration = 100 ms) were examined for their effect on lumbar motion response (L3 displacement, L1, L2 acceleration) and normalized multifidus electromyographic response (L3, L4) using a repeated measures analysis of variance.', 'Increasing L3 posteroanterior force amplitude resulted in a fourfold linear increase in L3 posteroanterior vertebral displacement (p < 0.001) and adjacent segment (L1, L2) posteroanterior acceleration response (p < 0.001). L3 displacement was linearly correlated (p < 0.001) to the acceleration response over the 20-80 N force range (100 ms). At constant force, 10 ms thrusts resulted in nearly fivefold lower L3 displacements and significantly increased segmental (L2) acceleration responses compared to the 100 ms (19%, p = 0.005) and 200 ms (16%, p = 0.023) thrusts. Normalized electromyographic responses increased linearly with increasing force amplitude at higher amplitudes and were appreciably affected by mechanical excitation pulse duration.\Question: Do spinal manipulation force and duration affect vertebral movement and neuromuscular responses?

Output: Changes in the biomechanical and neuromuscular response of the ovine lumbar spine were observed in response to changes in the force-time characteristics of the spinal manipulative thrusts and may be an underlying mechanism in related clinical outcomes.


Input: Consider Input: Context: To examine whether differences emerged when the Chinese version of the Movement-Specific Reinvestment Scale (MSRS-C) was administered to community-dwelling older adults with instructions to respond in the context of "general" movements, walking, using chopsticks or dressing. Furthermore, the difference between the six-point Likert scale and four-point Likert scale response formats of the MSRS-C was investigated.', 'The study was implemented in the community of Hong Kong with 52 older adults (mean age 77.4 years). Telephone interviews were carried out on two occasions for each participant. Participants provided a verbal response to each of 10 questions from the MSRS-C with different response formats (i.e., six-point or four-point Likert Scales) and different instructions in the response context (i.e. general, walking, using chopsticks, dressing). The sequence of response format and context was randomized for each participant.', 'Older fallers scored significantly higher on the MSRS-C (general) with six-point or four-point response formats than non-fallers. The MSRS-C (general) and MSRS-C (walking) were not statistically different, and showed good discriminative power for previous older fall status (older fallers or older non-fallers). However, MSRS-C (chopsticks) and MSRS-C (dressing) failed to differentiate older fallers from older non-fallers.\Question: Do instructions influence response to the Chinese version of the Movement-Specific Reinvestment Scale in community-dwelling older adults?


Output: Both the MSRS-C (general) and MSRS-C (walking) with a six-point or a four-point response format showed good discrimination of older fallers from non-fallers. Older adults might respond to the MSRS-C with respect to the most challenging movements (e.g. fall-related movements) in their daily living. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2015; ●●: ●●-●●.