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: The failure of in utero transplantation in immune-competent recipients suggests the existence of a fetal immune barrier. The importance of donor major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I expression in the induction of prenatal tolerance remains undefined. We hypothesized that donor cell MHC class I expression facilitates engraftment in prenatal allogeneic recipients rather than promoting immune rejection.', 'B6.Ly5.2 (class I(+)) or B6.TAP(-/-) (class I(-)) murine fetal liver cells were transplanted into age-matched allogeneic fetal recipients. Survival to weaning and subsequent growth was assessed. Engraftment rates and peripheral blood chimerism levels were measured serially.', 'The presence or absence of class I expression did not affect survival or growth of recipients and no graft-vs-host disease developed. Allogeneic recipients of B6.Ly5.2 cells exhibited significantly higher levels of donor hematopoietic chimerism when compared to recipients of B6.TAP(-/-) cells (27% + 10% vs 11% + 8%; P = .004) that deteriorated further over time.
Answer: Donor class I MHC antigen expression is essential for stable long-term engraftment and maintenance of donor-specific tolerance. Further studies are needed to better characterize the role of the fetal innate immune system in prenatal allotransplantation.
Example Output: Does donor major histocompatibility complex class I expression determine the outcome of prenatal transplantation?

Example Input: Context: Sepsis is an emergency condition with high mortality and morbidity rate. There are limited data on the association of cancer as a risk factor for mortality in sepsis patients in the emergency department (ED).', 'This retrospective study was conducted at the ED, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. The study period was between January 1st and December 31st, 2014. The inclusion criteria were as follows: adult patients over 15 years of age who presented at the ED with suspicion of sepsis, received treatment at the ED, and whose blood culture was found to be positive. Clinical data were recorded from medical records including the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score (MEDS score). The primary outcome of this study was mortality at one month. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent factors associated with death.', 'During the study period, there were 775 eligible patients. The two most common pathogens identified from blood cultures were Staphylococcus aureus (193 patients; 24.9%) and Escherichia coli (158 patients; 20.4%). At one month after presenting at the ED, 110 patients (14.2%) had died. There were four significant factors for death, having cancer, being on an endotracheal tube, initial diagnosis of bacteremia, and high MED scores. Having cancer had an adjusted OR of 2.12 (95% CI of 1.29, 3.47).
Answer: Cancer patients have double the risk of mortality if presenting with sepsis at the ED.
Example Output: Do cancer Patients Are at High Risk of Mortality if Presenting with Sepsis at an Emergency Department?

Example Input: Context: The aim of this meta-analysis was to study the relation between access site and bivalirudin use on outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).', 'Bivalirudin and radial access use are 2 strategies that are increasingly used to lower major bleeding in patients with ACS undergoing invasive approaches. The interaction between these 2 strategies and the benefit of using them in combination are unclear.', 'This analysis included randomized controlled trials that compared bivalirudin to heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with ACS and reported outcomes stratified by arterial access site. Meta-analyses of outcome data were performed on the basis of access site and anticoagulation regimen. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from event rates using random-effects models.', 'Eight trials with a total of 27,491 patients were included. Bivalirudin reduced major bleeding risk in patients with femoral access (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.6; p< 0.001) but not in patients with radial access (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.26; p= 0.28). Moreover, radial access reduced major bleeding risk in patients treated with heparin (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.77; p< 0.001) but not in patients treated with bivalirudin (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.41; p= 0.83). There were no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality between bivalirudin and heparin, regardless of access site.
Answer: Bivalirudin reduces bleeding risk only with femoral access, and radial access reduces bleeding risk only with heparin anticoagulation. Therefore, there is no additional benefit to the combined use of bivalirudin and radial access strategies in patients with ACS.
Example Output:
Is combined Use of Bivalirudin and Radial Access in Acute Coronary Syndromes Superior to the Use of Either One Separately : Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials?