instruction:
Given a passage with a question and an answer to that question, classify if the answer actually answers the question into 'yes' or 'no'. Output 'yes' if the answer answers the question and output 'no' if the answer does not answer the question.
question:
Question: Does remote ischemic preconditioning affect the incidence of acute kidney injury after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair?
Answer: RIPC did not reduce the risk of postoperative renal failure or myocardial injury in patients undergoing open AAA repair. The authors' results do not support the introduction of this technique to routine clinical practice.
answer:
no


question:
Question: Does polymorphism of the glycoprotein Ia and IIIa in the group of women in childbirth correlate with an increased risk of developing thrombosis?
Answer: Our results did not show the causative relationship between the existence of platelets GP IIIa/GP Ia mutations and venous system thrombosis in the women in labor. Probably presence of pro-thrombotic mutations of platelets glycoprotein in this group of patients does not represent the increased risk of thrombosis.
answer:
no


question:
Question: Is incidental findings of uncertain significance : To know or not to know -- that the question?
Answer: This article investigates how the various arguments for and against a right not to know hold for IFUS. The main investigated arguments are: hypothetical utilitarianism, the right-based argument, the feasibility argument, the value of knowledge argument, the argument from lost significance, the empirical argument, the duty to disclose argument, the avoiding harm argument; the argument from principle, from autonomy, from privacy, as well as the argument from the right to an open future. The analysis shows that both sides in the debate have exaggerated the importance of incidental findings. Opponents of a right not to know have exaggerated the importance of IFUS, while proponents have exaggerated the need to be protected from something that is not knowledge. Hence, to know or not to know is not the question. The question is whether we should be able to stay ignorant of incidental findings of uncertain significance, if we want to. The answer is yes: As long as the information is not accurate and/or actionable: ignorance is bliss. When answering questions that are not asked, we need to think twice.
answer:

no