Given a passage with a context and an answer, 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: Context: Two years ago the authors began to use Swan-Ganz catheters to generate more complex hemodynamic data as a better guide to resuscitation of burns. This study uses the information to identify differences between survivors and nonsurvivors.', 'Fifty-three consecutive patients with major burns were treated using Swan-Ganz-generated data. Additional information was collected, including demographics, intake and output, medications, and arterial blood gas (including calculated oxygen consumption). Statistical analysis incorporated adjustments for autocorrelation.', 'The patients included 38 men and 15 women, averaged 43.7 years of age, and had a mean burn size of 40%. Thirteen patients suffered severe inhalation injury. Data collected hourly over 3 days were collapsed across 6-hour observation periods. Mean values, when plotted across time, discriminated the 37 survivors from the 16 nonsurvivors. Poor response to resuscitation as evidenced by increased use of colloid fluid and cardiotonic drugs plus failure to maximize oxygen consumption were associated with nonsurvival.
Answer: Unsustained or inadequate response to hyperdynamic resuscitation of burns was associated with nonsurvival.
Example Output: Do survival in major burn injuries is predicted by early response to Swan-Ganz-guided resuscitation?

Example Input: Context: Compared with standard donors, kidneys recovered from donors after cardiac death (DCD) exhibit higher rates of delayed graft function (DGF), and DCD livers demonstrate higher rates of biliary ischemia, graft loss, and worse patient survival. Current practice limits the use of these organs based on time from donor extubation to asystole, but data to support this is incomplete. We hypothesized that donor postextubation parameters, including duration and severity of hemodynamic instability or hypoxia might be a better predictor of subsequent graft function.', 'We performed a retrospective examination of the New England Organ Bank DCD database, concentrating on donor factors including vital signs after withdrawal of support.', 'Prolonged, severe hypotension in the postextubation period was a better predictor of subsequent organ function that time from extubation to asystole. For DCD kidneys, this manifested as a trend toward increased DGF. For DCD livers, this manifested as increased rates of poor outcomes. Maximizing the predictive value of this test in the liver cohort suggested that greater than 15 min between the time when the donor systolic blood pressure drops below 50 mm Hg and flush correlates with increased rates of diffuse biliary ischemia, graft loss, or death. Donor age also correlated with worse outcome.
Answer: Time between profound instability and cold perfusion is a better predictor of outcome than time from extubation to asystole. If validated, this information could be used to predict DGF after DCD renal transplant and improve outcomes after DCD liver transplant.
Example Output: Do donor postextubation hypotension and age correlate with outcome after donation after cardiac death transplantation?

Example Input: Context: Three-year colonoscopic surveillance after initial polypectomy may not be required for all patients. Those with multiple baseline polyps and large adenomas, implicated as predictors of colon cancer, merit close observation. Conversely, patients with single small adenomas may be subjected to early endoscopic surveillance unnecessarily.', 'From our Adenoma Registry we evaluated patient and adenoma characteristics in 697 patients. All had an adenoma recurrence within 3 years of a positive baseline colonoscopy. Potential risk factors studied were age, gender, number of adenomas, size of largest adenoma and histology. We defined a significant outcome as size of 1 cm or greater, tubulovillous or villous histology, high-grade dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, invasive cancer, or 4 or more adenomas.', 'Having 3 or more adenomas on initial colonoscopy with at least 1 measuring 1 cm or larger greatly increased the chance of a significant finding on the first surveillance colonoscopy. Conversely, patients with 1 or 2 adenomas all measuring less than 1 cm were at extremely low risk of an important outcome within 3 years.
Answer: Patients with 1 or 2 adenomas all measuring less than 1 cm are an identified low risk group and their first surveillance examination may be delayed beyond the standard 3 years.
Example Output:
Are adenoma size and number predictive of adenoma recurrence : implications for surveillance colonoscopy?