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 Input:
Context: Presence of intratumoral T-cell infiltration has been linked to improved survival in ovarian cancer patients. We questioned whether antibody immunity specific for ovarian cancer tumor antigens would predict disease outcome. We evaluated humoral immune responses against ovarian cancer antigens p53, HER-2/neu, and topoisomerase IIalpha.', 'Serum was collected from 104 women (median age, 59 years; range, 34 to 89 years) at the time of their initial definitive surgery for ovarian cancer. Serum was analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for antibodies to p53, HER-2/neu, and topoisomerase IIalpha proteins. Antibody immunity to tetanus toxoid was assessed as a control. The incidence of humoral immunity at the time of diagnosis to any of these three antigens was tabulated. For patients with advanced-stage disease (III/IV), correlation was made between the presence of tumor-specific immunity at the time of diagnosis and overall survival. Patients were followed for a median of 1.8 years.', 'Multivariate analysis showed the presence of p53 antibodies to be an independent variable for prediction of overall survival in advanced-stage patients. Overall survival was significantly higher for patients with antibodies to p53 when compared with patients without p53 antibodies (P = .01). The median survival for p53 antibody-positive patients was 51 months (95% CI, 23.5 to 60.5 months) compared with 24 months (95% CI, 19.4 to 28.6 months) for patients without antibodies to p53.\Question: Is antibody immunity to the p53 oncogenic protein a prognostic indicator in ovarian cancer?

Ex Output:
Data presented here demonstrate that advanced stage ovarian cancer patients can have detectable tumor-specific antibody immunity and that immunity to p53 may predict improved overall survival in patients with advanced-stage disease.

Ex Input:
Context: To evaluate the efficacy of continuous low-level heat wrap therapy for the treatment of various sources of wrist pain including strain and sprain (SS), tendinosis (T), osteoarthritis (OA), and carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).', 'Prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind (investigator), placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial.', 'Two community-based research facilities.', 'Ninety-three patients (age range, 18-65 y) with wrist pain.', 'Subjects with moderate or greater wrist pain were randomized and stratified to 1 of the following treatments: efficacy evaluation (heat wrap, n=39; oral placebo, n=42) or blinding (oral acetaminophen, n=6; unheated wrap, n=6). Data were recorded over 3 days of treatment and 2 days of follow-up.', 'The primary comparison was between the heat wrap and the oral placebo group among SS/T/OA subjects for pain relief. Outcome measures included pain relief (0-5 scale), joint stiffness (101-point numeric rating scale), grip strength measured by dynamometry, and perceived pain and disability (Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation [PRWE]); subjects with CTS also completed the Symptom Severity Scale and Functional Status Scale.', 'Heat wrap therapy showed significant benefits in day 1 to 3 mean pain relief (P=.045) and increased day 3 grip strength (P=.02) versus oral placebo for the SS/T/OA group. However, joint stiffness and PRWE results were comparable between the 2 treatments. For the CTS group, heat wraps provided greater day 1 to 3/hour 0 to 8 mean pain relief (P=.001), day 1 to 3 mean joint stiffness reduction (P=.004), increased day 3 grip strength (P=.003), reduced PRWE scores (P=.0015), reduced symptom severity (P=.001), and improved functional status (P=.04). In addition, the heat wrap showed significant extended benefits through follow-up (day 5) in the CTS group.\Question: Is continuous low-level heat wrap therapy effective for treating wrist pain?

Ex Output:
Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy was efficacious for the treatment of common conditions causing wrist pain and impairment.

Ex Input:
Context: The goal of this study was to compare language lateralization between pediatric epilepsy patients and healthy children.', 'Two groups of subjects were evaluated with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) by using a silent verb-generation task. The first group included 18 pediatric epilepsy patients, whereas the control group consisted of 18 age/gender/handedness-matched healthy subjects.', 'A significant difference in hemispheric lateralization index (LI) was found between children with epilepsy (mean LI =-0.038) and the age/gender/handedness-matched healthy control subjects (mean LI=0.257; t=6.490, p<0.0001). A dramatic difference also was observed in the percentage of children with epilepsy (77.78%) who had atypical LI (right-hemispheric or bilateral, LI<0.1) when compared with the age/gender/handedness-matched group (11.11%; chi(2)=16.02, p<0.001). A linear regression analysis showed a trend toward increasing language lateralization with age in healthy controls (R(2)=0.152; p=0.108). This association was not observed in pediatric epilepsy subjects (R(2)=0.004, p=0.80). A significant association between language LI and epilepsy duration also was found (R(2)=0.234, p<0.05).\Question: Does fMRI show atypical language lateralization in pediatric epilepsy patients?

Ex Output:
This study shows that epilepsy during childhood is associated with neuroplasticity and reorganization of language function.