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.

[EX Q]: Context: Recent studies have demonstrated that mouthwash made with the traditional Japanese medicine hangeshashinto exhibits anti-inflammatory action and alleviates oral mucositis scores, including pain complaints, in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy. However, no study has demonstrated the mechanism underlying how hangeshashinto provides pain relief in oral ulcers.', 'The analgesic effects on pain-related behaviors following the topical application of hangeshashinto were evaluated in an oral ulcer rat model treated with acetic acid using recently developed methods. Indomethacin, the representative anti-inflammatory agent, was intraperitoneally administered. The tissue permeability of the oral mucosa was histologically evaluated after applying the fluorescent substance FluoroGold.', 'The topical application of hangeshashinto in ulcerative oral mucosa suppressed mechanical pain hypersensitivity over 60 min, without any effects on healthy mucosa. The same drug application also inhibited oral ulcer-induced spontaneous pain. Indomethacin administration failed to block the mechanical pain hypersensitivity, though it did largely block spontaneous pain. Topical anesthesia with lidocaine showed hyposensitivity to mechanical stimulation in healthy mucosa. In the ulcer regions in which the oral epithelial barrier was destroyed, deep parenchyma was stained with FluoroGold, in contrast to healthy oral mucosa, in which staining was limiting to the superficial site.\Question: Does the traditional Japanese medicine hangeshashinto alleviate oral ulcer-induced pain in a rat model?
[EX A]: Hangeshashinto leads to long-lasting analgesic effects, specifically in the ulcer region by destroying the epithelial barrier. Hangeshashinto alleviates oral ulcer-induced pain in inflammation-dependent and/or independent manner.

[EX Q]: Context: Intrathecal magnesium sulfate coinfusion with morphine increases antinociception in normal rats; however, because magnesium also delays the onset of tolerance, it is not clear whether this additional antinociception is a result of potentiated analgesia or tolerance abatement. We examined the antinociceptive interaction of intrathecal (IT) bolus magnesium sulfate and morphine in morphine naive rats and those with mechanical allodynia after a surgical incision. After intrathecal catheter implantation, rats were given preinjections of magnesium or saline, followed by injections of morphine or saline. In morphine naïve rats, IT bolus magnesium sulfate 281 and 375 microg followed by IT morphine 0.25 or 0.5 nmol enhanced peak antinociception and area under the response versus time curve two-to-three-fold in the tail-flick test as compared with morphine alone. Likewise, in rats with incisional pain, IT bolus magnesium sulfate 188 and 375 microg followed by morphine 0.5 nmol reduced mechanical allodynia, whereas morphine 0.5 nmol alone did not. This study suggests that IT magnesium sulfate potentiates morphine at a spinal site of action.\Question: Does magnesium sulfate potentiate morphine antinociception at the spinal level?
[EX A]: Magnesium sulfate potentiates morphine analgesia when coadministered intrathecally in normal rats, and in an animal model of mechanical allodynia after a surgical incision. These results suggest that intrathecal administration of magnesium sulfate may be a useful adjunct to spinal morphine analgesia.

[EX Q]: Context: To compare walking characteristics of individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD) using a new walking aid, the WalkAbout, with usual walking.", 'Fifteen subjects with PD were recruited. Subjects walked in their usual fashion and then walked again in the WalkAbout. Gait parameters, 5-min walk, and oxygen consumption were recorded.', 'Stride lengths were shorter when using the WalkAbout. On an average, the distance walked in 5 min and the oxygen uptake was not different when walking with the WalkAbout compared with the usual walk. Eight subjects (responders) walked further with the WalkAbout compared to their usual walk (164.90 +/- 55.72 m vs. 140.82 +/- 55.94 m). Seven subjects (non-responders) walked a shorter distance while using the WalkAbout compared to their usual walk (241.79 +/- 73.06 m vs. 281.24 +/- 82.83 m). Compared to non-responders, responders were older, had more severe disability, and were more likely to use an assistive device for walking. Responders walked more slowly, had a shorter stride length, and walked shorter distances in 5 min than non-responders.\Question: Does evaluation of a new device to prevent fall in persons with Parkinson 's disease?
[EX A]:
The WalkAbout may help persons with PD who have more severe disability to walk farther. These data could be beneficial in selecting a helpful walking aid for persons with PD.