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.

Input: Consider Input: A significant proportion of school-aged children experience special health care needs (SCHN) and seek care from pediatricians with a wide range of condition types and severity levels. This study examines the learning pathways of children with established (already diagnosed at school entry) and emerging (teacher identified) SHCN from school entry through the elementary school years.', 'The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) is a nationally representative clustered cross-sequential sample of 2 cohorts of Australian children which commenced in May 2004. Data were analyzed from the LSAC kindergarten cohort (n=4,983), as well as a subsample of 720 children for whom teachers also completed the Australian Early Development Index checklist, a measure of early childhood development at school entry that includes SHCN.', 'Latent class analysis was utilized to establish 3 academic trajectories from 4-5 to 10-11 years: high (24.3%), average (49.8%), and low (23.6%). Descriptive statistics revealed a trend for both children with established and emerging SHCN to fall into weaker performing learning pathways. Multinomial logistic regression focusing on those children with emerging SHCN confirmed this pattern of results, even after adjustment for covariates (relative risk 3.06, 95% confidence interval 1.03-9.10). Children who additionally had low socioeconomic standing were particularly at risk.

Output: Does learning trajectories of children with special health care need across the severity spectrum?

Input: Consider Input: To investigate the influence of metabolic syndrome on prostate-specific antigen levels by considering prostate volume and plasma volume.', 'We retrospectively analyzed 4111 men who underwent routine check-ups including prostate-specific antigen and transrectal ultrasonography. The definition of metabolic syndrome was based on the modified Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. Prostate-specific antigen mass density (prostate-specific antigen plasma volume / prostate volume) was calculated for adjusting plasma volume and prostate volume. We compared prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen mass density levels of participants with metabolic syndrome (metabolic syndrome group, n = 1242) and without metabolic syndrome (non-prostate-specific antigen metabolic syndrome group, n = 2869). To evaluate the impact of metabolic syndrome on prostate-specific antigen, linear regression analysis for the natural logarithm of prostate-specific antigen was used.', 'Patients in the metabolic syndrome group had significantly older age (P < 0.001), larger prostate volume (P < 0.001), higher plasma volume (P < 0.001) and lower mean serum prostate-specific antigen (non-metabolic syndrome group vs metabolic syndrome group; 1.22 0.91 vs 1.15 0.76 ng/mL, P = 0.006). Prostate-specific antigen mass density in the metabolic syndrome group was still significantly lower than that in the metabolic syndrome group (0.124 0.084 vs 0.115 0.071 g/mL, P = 0.001). After adjusting for age, prostate volume and plasma volume using linear regression model, the presence of metabolic syndrome was a significant independent factor for lower prostate-specific antigen (prostate-specific antigen decrease by 4.1%, P = 0.046).

Output: Is prostate-specific antigen lowering effect of metabolic syndrome influenced by prostate volume?

Input: Consider Input: Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) that may repair vascular injury are reduced in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We reasoned that EPC number and function may be increased by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) used to mobilize hematopoietic progenitor cells in healthy donors.', 'Sixteen CAD patients had reduced CD34(+)/CD133(+) (0.0224+/-0.0063% versus 0.121+/-0.038% mononuclear cells [MNCs], P<0.01) and CD133(+)/VEGFR-2(+) cells, consistent with EPC phenotype (0.00033+/-0.00015% versus 0.0017+/-0.0006% MNCs, P<0.01), compared with 7 healthy controls. Patients also had fewer clusters of cells in culture, with out-growth consistent with mature endothelial phenotype (2+/-1/well) compared with 16 healthy subjects at high risk (13+/-4/well, P<0.05) or 14 at low risk (22+/-3/well, P<0.001) for CAD. G-CSF 10 microg/kg per day for 5 days increased CD34(+)/CD133(+) cells from 0.5+/-0.2/microL to 59.5+/-10.6/microL and CD133(+)/ VEGFR-2(+) cells from 0.007+/-0.004/microL to 1.9+/-0.6/microL (both P<0.001). Also increased were CD133(+) cells that coexpressed the homing receptor CXCR4 (30.4+/-8.3/microL, P<0.05). Endothelial cell-forming clusters in 10 patients increased to 27+/-9/well after treatment (P<0.05), with a decline to 9+/-4/well at 2 weeks (P=0.06).
Output: Does granulocyte colony-stimulating factor mobilize functional endothelial progenitor cells in patients with coronary artery disease?