Given a passage, construct a question on the basis of the information present in the passage. Construct the question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) it is answerable from the passage, (iii) its answer is unique (iv) it answer uses text phrases from the passage. Avoid creating questions that (i) can't be answered correctly without actually understanding the passage and (ii) uses the same words or phrases given in the passage.

Example Input: To determine whether a common peer assessment instrument can assess competencies across internal medicine, pediatrics, and psychiatry specialties.', "A common 36 item peer survey assessed psychiatry (n = 101), pediatrics (n = 100), and internal medicine (n = 103) specialists. Cronbach's alpha and generalizability analysis were used to assess reliability and factor analysis to address validity.", "A total of 2,306 (94.8% response rate) surveys were analyzed. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was.98. The generalizabililty coefficient (mean of 7.6 raters) produced an Ep(2) =.83. Four factors emerged with a similar pattern of relative importance for pediatricians and internal medicine specialists whose first factor was patient management. Communication was the first factor for psychiatrists.
Example Output: Do an examination of the appropriateness of using a common peer assessment instrument to assess physician skills across specialties?

Example Input: This study was designed to determine the relevance of a proposed classification for advanced heart failure (HF). Profiles based on clinical assessment of congestion and perfusion at the time of hospitalization were compared with subsequent outcomes.', 'Optimal design of therapy and trials for advanced HF remains limited by the lack of simple clinical profiles to characterize patients.', "Prospective analysis was performed for 452 patients admitted to the cardiomyopathy service at the Brigham and Women's Hospital with a diagnosis of HF. Patients were classified by clinical assessment into four profiles: profile A, patients with no evidence of congestion or hypoperfusion (dry-warm, n = 123); profile B, congestion with adequate perfusion (wet-warm, n = 222); profile C, congestion and hypoperfusion (wet-cold, n = 91); and profile L, hypoperfusion without congestion (dry-cold, n = 16). Other standard predictors of outcome were included and patients were followed for the end points of death (n = 117) and death or urgent transplantation (n = 137) at one year.", 'Survival analysis showed that clinical profiles predict outcomes in HF. Profiles B and C increase the risk of death plus urgent transplantation by univariate (hazard ratio [HR] 1.83, p = 0.02) and multivariate analyses (HR 2.48, p = 0.003). Moreover, clinical profiles add prognostic information even when limited to patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV symptoms (profile B: HR 2.23, p = 0.026; profile C: HR 2.73, p = 0.009).
Example Output: Does clinical assessment identify hemodynamic profiles that predict outcomes in patients admitted with heart failure?

Example Input: Cirrhotic patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for refractory ascites or recurrent variceal bleeding are at risk for decompensation and death. This study examined whether a new model for end stage liver disease (MELD), which incorporates serum sodium (MELDNa), is a better predictor of death or transplant after TIPS than the original MELD.', "One hundred forty-eight consecutive patients undergoing nonemergent TIPS for refractory ascites or recurrent variceal bleeding from 1997 to 2006 at a single center were evaluated retrospectively. Cox model analysis was performed with death or transplant within 6 months as the end point. The models were compared using the Harrell's C index. Recursive partitioning determined the optimal MELDNa cutoff to maximize the risk:benefit ratio of TIPS.", 'The predictive ability of MELDNa was superior to MELD, particularly in patients with low MELD scores. The C indices (95% confidence interval [CI]) for MELDNa and MELD were 0.65 (95% CI, 0.55-0.71) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.51-0.67) using a cut-off score of 18, and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60-0.85) and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.49-0.74) using a cut-off score of 15. Using a MELDNa >15, 22% of patients were reclassified to a higher risk with an event rate of 44% compared with 10% when the score was <or=15.
Example Output:
Does new model for end stage liver disease improve prognostic capability after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt?