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.

Example Input: Context: To determine the role of factor V Leiden and prothrombin gene mutation in the pathogenesis of unexplained second and third trimester nonrecurrent fetal loss.', 'One hundred and fourteen women with unexplained nonrecurrent late fetal loss made up the study group, and 106 normal pregnant women with a history of delivery of at least one healthy fetus and no history of late fetal loss made up the control group. The study group was further divided into two subgroups: second (n = 36) and third (n = 78) trimester fetal loss. All women were tested for factor V Leiden and G20210A prothrombin gene mutations.', 'Twenty-one (18.4%) of the women in the study group and seven (6.6%) of the women in the control group were heterozygous carriers of factor V Leiden mutation (OR = 3.19). Eleven (9.6%) of the women in the study group and three (2.8%) of the women in the control group were heterozygous carriers of prothrombin gene mutation (OR = 3.66). In assessing with regard to trimesters, 18 (23%) factor V Leiden and 10 (12.8%) prothrombin gene mutations were present in the group of third trimester fetal loss (OR = 4.24 and OR = 5.04, respectively). Three (8.3%) factor V Leiden and one (2.7%) prothrombin gene mutation were detected in women with second trimester fetal loss (OR = 1.28 and OR = 0.40, respectively).\Question: Is third trimester nonrecurrent fetal loss associated with factor V Leiden and prothrombin gene mutations?
Example Output: Factor V Leiden and prothrombin gene mutations were associated with third trimester nonrecurrent fetal loss. These mutations should be screened in women with third trimester but not second trimester unexplained nonrecurrent late fetal loss.

Example Input: Context: The surgical treatment method in which the peritoneal cavity is opened anteriorly and deliberately left open, hence often called "open abdomen" has become the standard of care in damage-control procedures as well as in the management of intra-abdominal hypertension and in severe intra-abdominal sepsis. Whereas open abdomen has been closed in two stages traditionally, a modern trend is to close the fascial layers within the initial hospitalization to avoid complications like enterocutaneous fistula and hernia formation. The aim of this study was to determine crucial factors influencing the possibility of fascial closure after open abdomen.', 'Between 2003 and 2013, 355 adult patients were treated with open abdomen in our institution. Their data were collected and retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into two groups depending on fascial closure or not (fascial closure, n=137 (39%) vs. non-fascial closure, n=218 (61%)).', 'The patients who reached fascial closure had a significantly higher rate of initially performed open abdomen (97 patients (71%) vs. 118 (54%), p=0.002) and the periods of time until a second and a third look operation were significantly shorter (2.72.5 vs. 4.26.6 days, p=0.021 and 5.63.7 vs. 8.58.6 days, p=0.006). Furthermore, the presence of peritonitis (64 patients (47%) vs. 83 patients (38%), p=0.023) and large bowel resection (74 patients (54%) vs. 90 patients (41%), p=0.022) were significantly higher in this group. Rates of in-hospital mortality (97 patients (44%) vs. 38 patients (28%), p=0.002) and the presence of pancreatitis (19 patients (9%) vs. 3 patients (2%), p=0.013) were significantly higher in the non-fascial closure group.\Question: Are fascial closure after open abdomen : initial indication and early revisions decisive factors -- a retrospective cohort study?
Example Output: The probability to reach fascial closure after open abdomen seems to increase when open abdomen is performed initially and when early second and third look operations are performed. The presence of pancreatitis seems to be the only negative prognostic marker concerning fascial closure.

Example Input: Context: To assess the predictive value of glycated albumin (GA) and other risk factors on a progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR).', 'In this retrospective longitudinal study, we enrolled the subjects with type 2 diabetes who had undergone fundus photography twice with a 5-years gap between January 2006 and December 2012, and had been measured consecutively for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and GA levels every 3 or 6 months. The subjects were divided into two groups with or without a progression of DR. The mean HbA1c and mean GA were calculated separately by the sum of all measured values divided by the numbers of values throughout the study period.', 'Of the 359 subjects, progression group showed significantly higher diabetes duration (8.415.72 vs. 6.465.77, P<0.01), baseline HbA1c (9.132.71 vs. 8.412.32, P<0.05), fasting plasma glucose (8.712.78 vs. 7.942.63, P<0.05), 2h-postprandial glucose (15.1211.20 vs.13.144.72, P<0.05), eGFR (114.8139.15 vs. 103.2332.18, P<0.01), mean HbA1c (8.321.69 vs. 7.391.35, P<0.01) and mean GA (22.665.92 vs. 19.835.18, P<0.01) than non-progression group. The frequencies of subjects with DR progression increased obviously with the increment of baseline HbA1c, mean HbA1c and mean GA according to quartile stratification of the above three glucose parameters. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis investigated that the factors affected the DR progression were the presence of DR at baseline (OR=0.391, P=0.005), mean HbA1c (OR=1.389, P=0.021), mean GA (OR=1.087, P=0.039) and eGFR (OR=1.008, P=0.045). The optimal cut-off values of mean HbA1c and GA to predict DR progression were 7.27% and 21.85%, respectively.\Question: Does serum glycated albumin predict the progression of diabetic retinopathy -- a five year retrospective longitudinal study?
Example Output:
The presence of DR at baseline, poor glycemic control, glycated albumin, and impaired renal function predicted DR progression in patients with type 2 diabetes.