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: With male gender as a strong predictor of cardiovascular instability, we hypothesized that gender-specific differences in circulating carbon monoxide levels contributed to dysregulated microvascular function in preterm male infants.', 'Infants born at 24 to 34 weeks of gestation (N = 84) were studied in a regional tertiary neonatal unit. Carboxyhemoglobin levels were measured through spectrophotometry in umbilical arterial blood and at 24, 72, and 120 hours after birth. Microvascular blood flow was determined through laser Doppler flowmetry.', 'Carboxyhemoglobin levels demonstrated a strong inverse relationship with gestational age (r = -0.636; P < .001) and were higher in boys (P = .032). Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed a significant decrease in arterial carboxyhemoglobin levels over time (P < .001), with significant between-subjects effects for gestational age (P = .011) and gender (P = .025). Positive correlations with microvascular blood flow at 24 hours of age (r = 0.495; P < .001) and 120 hours of age (r = 0.548; P < .001) were observed. With controlling for gestational age, carboxyhemoglobin levels at 72 hours were greater for infants who died in the first week of life (P = .035).\Question: Is carbon monoxide a significant mediator of cardiovascular status following preterm birth?

Output: The gestational age- and gender-specific differences in carboxyhemoglobin levels and the relationship with dysregulated microvascular blood flow, a state related to greater illness severity and hypotension, are novel findings not confined solely to sick preterm infants. Both inducible heme oxygenase-dependent and non-heme oxygenase-dependent pathways may initially play a central role in carbon monoxide production, inducing pathophysiologic processes in a gender-specific manner.

Input: Consider Input: Context: Trauma centers are currently benchmarked on mortality outcomes alone. However, pay-for-performance measures may financially penalize centers based on complications. Our objective was to determine whether the results would be similar to the current standard method of mortality-based benchmarking if trauma centers were profiled on complications.', 'We analyzed data from the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2010. Patients 16 years or older with blunt or penetrating injuries and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9 or higher were included. Risk-adjusted observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality ratios for each center were generated and used to rank each facility as high, average, or low performing. We similarly ranked facilities on O/E morbidity ratios defined as occurrence of any major complication. Concordance between hospital performance rankings was evaluated using a weighted statistic. Correlation between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios was assessed using Pearson coefficients. Sensitivity analyses were performed to mitigate the competing risk of death for the morbidity analyses.', 'A total of 449,743 patients from 248 facilities were analyzed. The unadjusted morbidity and mortality rates were 10.0% and 6.9%, respectively. No correlation was found between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios (r = -0.01). Only 40% of the centers had similar performance rankings for both mortality and morbidity. Of the 31 high performers for mortality, only 11 centers were also high performers for morbidity. A total of 78 centers were ranked as average, and 11 ranked as low performers on both outcomes. Comparison of hospital performance status using mortality and morbidity outcomes demonstrated poor concordance (weighted = 0.03, p = 0.22).\Question: Does benchmarking trauma centers on mortality alone reflect quality of care : implications for pay-for-performance?

Output: Mortality-based external benchmarking does not identify centers with high complication rates. This creates a dichotomy between current trauma center profiling standards and measures used for pay-for-performance. A benchmarking mechanism that reflects all measures of quality is needed.

Input: Consider Input: Context: Gram negative infection is a major determinant of morbidity and survival. Traditional teaching suggests that burn wound infections in different centres are caused by differing sets of causative organisms. This study established whether Gram-negative burn wound isolates associated to clinical wound infection differ between burn centres.', 'Studies investigating adult hospitalised patients (2000-2010) were critically appraised and qualified to a levels of evidence hierarchy. The contribution of bacterial pathogen type, and burn centre to the variance in standardised incidence of Gram-negative burn wound infection was analysed using two-way analysis of variance.', "Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumanni, Enterobacter spp., Proteus spp. and Escherichia coli emerged as the commonest Gram-negative burn wound pathogens. Individual pathogens' incidence did not differ significantly between burn centres (F (4, 20)=1.1, p=0.3797; r2=9.84).\Question: Do gram negative wound infection in hospitalised adult burn patients -- systematic review and metanalysis-?
Output: Gram-negative infections predominate in burn surgery. This study is the first to establish that burn wound infections do not differ significantly between burn centres. It is the first study to report the pathogens responsible for the majority of Gram-negative infections in these patients. Whilst burn wound infection is not exclusive to these bacteria, it is hoped that reporting the presence of this group of common Gram-negative "target organisms" facilitate clinical practice and target research towards a defined clinical demand.