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: Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) acts rapidly to modulate synaptic neurotransmission in the brain. Although present in neurons, glial cells, and mucosal cells of the colon, and in higher concentrations than in brain, the action of BDNF in gut have not been characterized. The aim of this study was to identify the role of BDNF in mediating the peristaltic reflex.', 'BDNF and a specific antiserum were examined for their effects on the peristaltic reflex and release of the sensory mediators serotonin and calcitonin gene-related peptide in rat colon. The peristaltic reflex and release of serotonin and calcitonin gene-related peptide were also examined in genetically modified mice (BDNF(+/-)) with reduced levels of BDNF.', 'Endogenous brain-derived neurotrophic factor was released into the sensory compartment in a stimulus-dependent manner during the peristaltic reflex induced by mucosal stimulation but not muscle stretch. BDNF stimulated and immunoneutralization of endogenous BDNF reduced ascending contraction and descending relaxation of circular muscle and release of serotonin and calcitonin gene-related peptide during the peristaltic reflex induced by mucosal stimulation but not muscle stretch. The peristaltic reflex and release of serotonin and calcitonin gene-related peptide during the peristaltic reflex induced by mucosal stimulation but not muscle stretch were significantly reduced in BDNF(+/-) mice.

Output: Does brain-derived neurotrophic factor augment peristalsis by augmenting 5-HT and calcitonin gene-related peptide release?

Input: Consider Input: Multiple rib fractures cause significant pain and potential for chest wall instability. Despite an emerging trend of surgical management of flail chest injuries, there are no studies examining the effect of rib fracture fixation on respiratory function.', 'Using a novel full thorax human cadaveric breathing model, we sought to explore the effect of flail chest injury and subsequent rib fracture fixation on respiratory outcomes.', 'We used five fresh human cadavers to generate negative breathing models in the left thorax to mimic physiologic respiration. Inspiratory volumes and peak flows were measured using a flow meter for all three chest wall states: intact chest, left-sided flail chest (segmental fractures of ribs 3 - 7), and post-fracture open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the chest wall with a pre-contoured rib specific plate fixation system.', 'A wide variation in the mean inspiratory volumes and peak flows were measured between specimens; however, the effect of a flail chest wall and the subsequent internal fixation of the unstable rib fractures was consistent across all samples. Compared to the intact chest wall, the inspiratory volume decreased by 40 19% in the flail chest model (P = 0.04). Open reduction and internal fixation of the flail chest returned the inspiratory volume to 130 71% of the intact chest volumes (P = 0.68). A similar 35 19% decrease in peak flows was seen in the flail chest (P = 0.007) and this returned to 125 71% of the intact chest following ORIF (P = 0.62).

Output: Does rib Fracture Fixation restore Inspiratory Volume and Peak Flow in a Full Thorax Human Cadaveric Breathing Model?

Input: Consider Input: To determine whether in-house patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) results predict Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC)-Houston phantom results.', "IROC Houston's IMRT head and neck phantoms have been irradiated by numerous institutions as part of clinical trial credentialing. We retrospectively compared these phantom results with those of in-house IMRT QA (following the institution's clinical process) for 855 irradiations performed between 2003 and 2013. The sensitivity and specificity of IMRT QA to detect unacceptable or acceptable plans were determined relative to the IROC Houston phantom results. Additional analyses evaluated specific IMRT QA dosimeters and analysis methods.", 'IMRT QA universally showed poor sensitivity relative to the head and neck phantom, that is, poor ability to predict a failing IROC Houston phantom result. Depending on how the IMRT QA results were interpreted, overall sensitivity ranged from 2% to 18%. For different IMRT QA methods, sensitivity ranged from 3% to 54%. Although the observed sensitivity was particularly poor at clinical thresholds (eg 3% dose difference or 90% of pixels passing gamma), receiver operator characteristic analysis indicated that no threshold showed good sensitivity and specificity for the devices evaluated.
Output: Does institutional patient-specific IMRT QA predict unacceptable plan delivery?