Upload 20260322T021329Z iteration_01_pubmedqa_train_generation

runs/20260322T021329Z/iteration_01_pubmedqa_train_generation/pubmedqa_extractor_visible_outputs.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_01", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary: do they have Lynch syndrome?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; HNPCC) is an autosomal-dominant cancer predisposition syndrome that increases risk for multiple cancers, including colon, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. Revised Bethesda Criteria recommend that patients with two HNPCC-associated cancers undergo molecular evaluation to determine whether they have a mismatch repair (MMR) defect associated with HNPCC. The purpose of our study was to determine the likelihood of MMR defects (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1) in women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2004, 102 women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers were identified; 59 patients had tumor blocks available for analysis. Patients were divided into risk groups based on family history: high (met Amsterdam criteria), medium (personal history or first-degree relative with an HNPCC-associated cancer), and low (all others). Protein expression for MSH2, MSH6, and MLH1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Microsatellite instability and MLH1 promoter methylation analyses were performed on a subset of cases.\nRESULTS: Median age was 50 years. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria for HNPCC. Five additional patients, all medium-risk, had molecular findings consistent with a germline mutation of either MSH2 or MLH1. None of the low-risk patients had molecular results consistent with a germline mutation.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary have Lynch syndrome. Let me start by recalling what Lynch syndrome is. It's an autosomal-dominant disorder that increases the risk for colorectal, endometrial, and ovarian cancers, among others. The key here is that Lynch syndrome involves defects in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, like MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, or PMS2.\n\nThe context provided is from a study. The study looked at 102 women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers between 1989 and 2004. They had 59 with tumor blocks available. They divided patients into risk groups based on family history: high (Amsterdam criteria), medium (personal or family history of HNPCC cancers), and low (others). They checked protein expression via immunohistochemistry for MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and also did microsatellite instability and MLH1 methylation tests on some.\n\nThe results say that median age was 50. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria (which is a high-risk family history), but that's only two out of 59. Then five additional medium-risk patients had molecular findings consistent with germline mutations in MSH2 or MLH1. None of the low-risk patients had such mutations. So, overall, out of the 59, 7 had some molecular evidence of Lynch (2 high-risk plus 5 medium-risk). But the question is about the likelihood in general.\n\nWait, the user might be a medical student or a healthcare professional trying to understand if these patients should be tested for Lynch. They might be dealing with a patient who has both cancers and want to know the next steps. The study shows that only a small percentage (7 out of 59) had Lynch-related mutations. But the study's sample is from 1989-2004, which might be outdated. Also, the criteria for Lynch have evolved since then.\n\nI should check the key points from the study. The revised Bethesda criteria mention that if someone has two HNPCC-associated cancers, they should get molecular testing. Here, synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers are both HNPCC-associated. So the study is relevant. The findings show that among the patients, only 7% (roughly) had Lynch mutations. But the two high-risk patients were already identified by\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "Women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer have a small but significant likelihood of Lynch syndrome, particularly with a family history of HNPCC-associated cancers.  \nFinal answer: maybe", "visible_output": "Women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer have a small but significant likelihood of Lynch syndrome, particularly with a family history of HNPCC-associated cancers.  \nFinal answer: maybe", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "maybe", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_02", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Is the Retromandibular Transparotid Approach a Reliable Option for the Surgical Treatment of Condylar Fractures?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: This study evaluated the outcomes and complications of the surgical treatment of condylar fractures by the retromandibular transparotid approach. The authors hypothesized that such an approach would be safe and reliable for the treatment of most condylar fractures.\nMATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients who underwent surgical reduction of a condylar fracture from January 2012 to December 2014 at the Clinic of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Hospital of Verona (Verona, Italy) was performed. Inclusion criteria were having undergone surgical treatment of condylar fractures with a retromandibular transparotid approach and the availability of computed tomograms of the preoperative and postoperative facial skeleton with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Static and dynamic occlusal function, temporomandibular joint health status, presence of neurologic impairments, and esthetic outcomes were evaluated in all patients.\nRESULTS: The sample was composed of 25 patients. Preinjury occlusion and temporomandibular joint health were restored in most patients. Esthetic outcomes were deemed satisfactory by clinicians and patients. Neither permanent neurologic impairments nor major postoperative complications were observed.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether the Retromandibular Transparotid Approach is a reliable option for treating condylar fractures. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study they mentioned is a retrospective analysis from Verona University Hospital between 2012 and 2014. They looked at 25 patients who had this specific surgical approach.\n\nFirst, I need to break down what the study says. The purpose was to check if this approach is safe and reliable. They compared pre-op and post-op CT scans, evaluated occlusion, TMJ health, neurologic issues, and aesthetics. The results show that most patients had restored occlusion and TMJ health. No permanent neurologic damage or major complications were reported. Aesthetics were good too.\n\nHmm, the user might be a medical student, a surgeon, or a patient. If they're a student or surgeon, they probably want to know if this approach is worth learning or using. If it's a patient, they might be worried about risks. But the question is phrased technically, so likely a professional. They need evidence-based info for clinical decisions.\n\nWait, the study has limitations. It's retrospective with only 25 patients. Small sample size means results might not be generalizable. Also, no control group—how do they know it's better than other approaches? The authors assumed it's safe, but without comparison, it's hard to say. They mention it's reliable for \"most\" fractures, but the study doesn't specify what \"most\" means. \n\nI should check if there are other studies. The context doesn't mention others, so I'll stick to this one. The key points: no major complications, good outcomes. But reliability? The term is tricky. In surgery, reliability implies consistency and low failure rates. Here, the approach worked for 25 cases without issues, but without a larger sample, it's not definitive. Also, condylar fractures vary—complex ones might not be covered. The study says \"most,\" so maybe they excluded severe cases?\n\nThe user might be concerned about alternatives. Like, is this approach better than others? The study doesn't compare it to other methods, so I can't say. But the authors hypothesized it's safe and reliable, and the results support that in their sample. \n\nAlso, the approach name: retromandibular transparotid. I remember that transparotid means through the parotid tissue\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "In this retrospective study of 25 patients, the retromandibular transparotid approach achieved successful surgical reduction with restored occlusion, TMJ function, and satisfactory aesthetics, without major complications or permanent neurologic deficits.  \nFinal answer: yes", "visible_output": "In this retrospective study of 25 patients, the retromandibular transparotid approach achieved successful surgical reduction with restored occlusion, TMJ function, and satisfactory aesthetics, without major complications or permanent neurologic deficits.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_03", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Is patient outcome compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVE: • Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) remains controversial in terms of oncologic outcomes, especially during the initial experience. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of initial experience of robotic cystectomy programs on oncologic outcomes and overall survival.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: • Utilizing a prospectively maintained, single institution robotic cystectomy database, we identified 164 consecutive patients who underwent RARC since November 2005. • After stratification by age group, gender, pathologic T stage, lymph node status, surgical margin status, and sequential case number; we used chi-squared analyses to correlate sequential case number to operative time, surgical blood loss, lymph node yield, and surgical margin status. • We also addressed the relationship between complications and sequential case number. We then utilized Cox proportional hazard modeling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to correlate variables to overall mortality.\nRESULTS: • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with increased incidence of complications, surgical blood loss, or positive surgical margins (P= 0.780, P= 0.548, P= 0.545). Case number was, however, significantly associated with shorter operative time and mean number of lymph nodes retrieved (P<0.001, P<0.001). • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with survival; however, tumour stage, the presence of lymph node metastases, and positive surgical margins were significantly associated with death. • Although being the largest of its kind, this was a small study with short follow-up when compared to open cystectomy series.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether patient outcomes are compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. The study they mentioned looked at 164 patients who had RARC from 2005 onwards. They stratified patients by age, gender, pathologic stage, lymph node status, surgical margins, and sequential case number.\n\nHmm, the key point here is the impact of being an early case in the program. The results showed that sequential case number wasn't significantly linked to complications, blood loss, or positive margins. That's important because those are common concerns about initial experiences. But they did find that as case numbers increased, operative time decreased and lymph node yield went up. So technically, the surgeons got better at the procedure over time.\n\nWait, the user might be a medical professional or a student researching this topic. They probably want to know if starting with robot-assisted cystectomy is risky for patients. The study's conclusion says that initial cases don't have worse outcomes in terms of complications or mortality. But the study is small and has short follow-up, which is a limitation. \n\nI should check the survival part. The results mention that tumor stage, lymph node metastases, and positive margins were significant for mortality, not the case number. So even in early cases, if the cancer is advanced or margins are positive, outcomes are worse. But the initial experience itself doesn't seem to hurt outcomes. \n\nThe user might be worried about adopting new tech. They might be a surgeon considering starting a robot program and want reassurance. The study shows that initial cases aren't worse, but the learning curve affects efficiency—shorter surgery time and more lymph nodes. That's a plus for accuracy, maybe reducing complications indirectly. \n\nAlso, the study is from a single institution, so it's not a broad comparison. But since it's the first study of its kind, it's a solid starting point. The user might need to know that while outcomes aren't worse initially, the learning curve means they should have experienced surgeons to handle early cases. \n\nI should emphasize that the main takeaway is no increased complications or mortality in early cases. The compromise isn't there, but efficiency improves with experience. The user's deeper need might be whether to invest in robot-assisted surgery early on without fearing worse outcomes for patients. The answer here is yes, initial outcomes are comparable, but ongoing learning is beneficial for better results over time.\n</think>\n\nBased **solely on\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "Sequential case number was not significantly associated with complications, blood loss, or mortality in robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Final answer: no", "visible_output": "Sequential case number was not significantly associated with complications, blood loss, or mortality in robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Final answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_04", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Are sports medicine journals relevant and applicable to practitioners and athletes?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence base of sports medicine research and assess how relevant and applicable it is to everyday practice.\nMETHODS: Original research articles, short reports, and case reports published in four major sport and exercise medicine journals were studied and classified according to the main topic of study and type of subjects used.\nRESULTS: The most common topic was sports science, and very few studies related to the treatment of injuries and medical conditions. The majority of published articles used healthy subjects sampled from the sedentary population, and few studies have been carried out on injured participants.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if sports medicine journals are relevant and applicable to practitioners and athletes. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. The context mentions a study that looked at four major sports medicine journals. The key findings were that the most common topic was sports science, with few studies on injury treatment. Also, most articles used healthy sedentary subjects, not injured athletes.\n\nHmm, the user is probably a practitioner—maybe a physical therapist, sports medic, coach, or an athlete themselves. They want to know if the journals they read will help them in real life. But deeper, they might be worried that the research they're reading isn't practical. Like, if they're treating an injury, do they need to read these journals? Or maybe they're a student trying to understand if this field is worth their time.\n\nThe context says that only a few studies focus on treatment. That's a big point. Practitioners need injury management info, but if the journals are mostly about sports science (like performance metrics, physiology), that might not directly help with treating injuries. Also, the subjects are often healthy people, not injured athletes. So the research might not apply to someone with a sprained ankle or something.\n\nWait, the user might be concerned about time. They have busy schedules and don't want to read irrelevant stuff. They need quick, actionable info. The context shows that the evidence base is skewed towards healthy populations, which means the journals might not address real-world injuries. That's a problem for practitioners dealing with actual patients.\n\nAnother angle: athletes might think the journals have the latest training methods. But if the studies are on sedentary people, the findings might not translate. For example, a study on muscle strength in non-athletes might not apply to a soccer player recovering from a knee injury. So applicability is low here.\n\nI should also consider the \"relevant\" part. The context says sports science is common. For athletes, that could be relevant for performance, but if they're dealing with injuries, maybe not. Practitioners might need more clinical studies. The study found few injury treatment studies, so the journals might not be sufficient for that.\n\nThe user's deeper need might be about efficiency. They want to know if they should spend time reading these journals or if there's better sources. Maybe they've noticed that the research doesn't help them in practice and are frustrated. They might be looking for validation that it's okay to focus elsewhere, like clinical guidelines or specific injury protocols.\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "The majority of studies in sports medicine journals focus on sports science in healthy populations, with few addressing injury treatment or clinical applications.  \nFinal answer: no", "visible_output": "The majority of studies in sports medicine journals focus on sports science in healthy populations, with few addressing injury treatment or clinical applications.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_05", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Is etoricoxib effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: Heterotopic ossification is a common complication after total hip arthroplasty. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to prevent heterotopic ossifications effectively, however gastrointestinal complaints are reported frequently. In this study, we investigated whether etoricoxib, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor that produces fewer gastrointestinal side effects, is an effective alternative for the prevention of heterotopic ossification.\nMETHODS: We investigated the effectiveness of oral etoricoxib 90 mg for seven days in a prospective two-stage study design for phase-2 clinical trials in a small sample of patients (n = 42). A cemented primary total hip arthroplasty was implanted for osteoarthritis. Six months after surgery, heterotopic ossification was determined on anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using the Brooker classification.\nRESULTS: No heterotopic ossification was found in 62 % of the patients that took etoricoxib; 31 % of the patients had Brooker grade 1 and 7 % Brooker grade 2 ossification.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if etoricoxib is effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty. Let me look at the context they provided.\n\nFirst, the study they mentioned is a phase-2 trial with 42 patients. The purpose was to see if etoricoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor with fewer GI side effects, works better than regular NSAIDs for preventing heterotopic ossification (HO). The key here is that they compared it to what's already known—NSAIDs are effective but cause GI issues. \n\nThe results say 62% of patients taking etoricoxib had no HO. That's a pretty good rate. But wait, the study is small (n=42) and phase-2, so it's not a large-scale trial. The Brooker classification shows 31% grade 1 and 7% grade 2 ossification. The control group isn't mentioned here, which is a bit odd. In phase-2 trials, they usually have a control group. The context says it's a two-stage study, but the results only report the etoricoxib group. Hmm, maybe the comparison is implied? Or perhaps the study didn't have a control group? The user's context doesn't specify the control group's outcomes. That's a limitation.\n\nThe user might be a medical professional, like an orthopedic surgeon or a patient. If they're a surgeon, they care about efficacy and safety. The study shows etoricoxib reduced HO compared to what? Without a control group, it's hard to say. But the context says \"we investigated whether etoricoxib... is an effective alternative,\" so maybe the study was designed to compare it against standard care? Wait, the context mentions NSAIDs are known to prevent HO, so etoricoxib is being tested as a better alternative. But the results only give the etoricoxib group's data. \n\nI recall that in some studies, they might use a historical control or a placebo group. Here, it's a two-stage study. The results say 62% no HO, but without knowing the baseline rate, it's tricky. For example, if the standard is 40% no HO, then 62% is better. But the context doesn't provide that. \n\nAlso, the study duration is seven days of etoricoxib. HO prevention usually\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "Etoricoxib showed a high rate of heterotopic ossification prevention (62% no HO) in a small phase-2 trial, suggesting efficacy comparable to NSAIDs with fewer gastrointestinal side effects.  \nFinal answer: yes", "visible_output": "Etoricoxib showed a high rate of heterotopic ossification prevention (62% no HO) in a small phase-2 trial, suggesting efficacy comparable to NSAIDs with fewer gastrointestinal side effects.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_06", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Is minimally invasive mitral valve repair with artificial chords reproducible and applicable in routine surgery?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVES: Traditional resectional techniques and chordal transfer are difficult to apply in video-assisted mitral valve repair. Using artificial chords appears easier in this setting. The purpose of this study was to review the effectiveness and reproducibility of neochordal repair as a routine approach to minimally invasive mitral repair, and to assess the stability of neochord implantation using the figure-of-eight suture without pledgets in this setting.\nMETHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve repair from 2008 to 2013. The primary endpoints were recurrent mitral regurgitation and reoperation.\nRESULTS: A total of 426 consecutive patients were included during the study period, with a mean age of 55 ± 18 years. Neochords were used in all patients, and in association with leaflet resection in 47 patients. One patient was not repairable and underwent valve replacement (repair rate, 99.8%). Fifteen patients had Grade I (3.5%) regurgitation, whereas the remainder had none. Patients were fast-tracked, with 25% extubated in the operation theatre and the remainder within 6 h. There were 5 deaths within 30 days (1.2%). Follow-up ranged 3-60 months, during which all of the patients remained with no or trace mitral regurgitation. No de-insertion or rupture of any neochords was found, and no patients required a reoperation.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether minimally invasive mitral valve repair with artificial chords is reproducible and applicable in routine surgery. Let me start by going through the context they provided. \n\nFirst, the study is a retrospective review from 2008 to 2013 with 426 patients. The main points here are that they used artificial chords in all patients, with leaflet resection in 47 cases. The repair rate was 99.8%, which is really high. That's a good sign for reproducibility because almost all patients were successfully repaired without needing valve replacement.\n\nThe outcomes show that 15 patients (3.5%) had Grade I regurgitation, which is mild. The rest had none. Also, no neochord de-insertion or rupture was reported. That's crucial because if the artificial chords were coming loose or breaking, that would be a problem. Plus, no reoperations were needed. That suggests the technique is stable and reliable.\n\nThe study mentions that patients were fast-tracked, with 25% extubated in the operating room and others within 6 hours. That's a quick recovery time, which is a plus for routine use. The 30-day mortality was 1.2%, which is low, especially considering the patient age (mean 55 ± 18 years). \n\nHmm, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a cardiac resident, looking to implement this technique. They probably want to know if this method is something they can rely on day-to-day without too many complications. The key here is reproducibility—can different surgeons do this consistently? The study shows high success rates and no failures, but it's a retrospective study. That means they didn't have a control group or multiple surgeons doing the same technique. Still, the large sample size (426 patients) adds weight to the findings.\n\nAlso, the technique uses figure-of-eight sutures without pledgets. The context says they assessed stability without pledgets, which is interesting because pledgets can cause tissue damage. Using non-pledget sutures might reduce complications, which is good for routine use. \n\nWait, the user might be concerned about the learning curve. The study doesn't mention training or how many surgeons were involved. But since it's a retrospective review, it's possible that the same team did all the procedures, which could affect reproducibility across different surgeons. However, the high repair rate and\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "Neochordal repair with figure-of-eight sutures without pledgets achieved 99.8% repair rate and no neochord de-insertion or reoperation in 426 patients.  \nFinal answer: yes", "visible_output": "Neochordal repair with figure-of-eight sutures without pledgets achieved 99.8% repair rate and no neochord de-insertion or reoperation in 426 patients.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_07", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair: is reimplantation of spinal cord arteries a waste of time?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The impact of different strategies for management of intercostal and lumbar arteries during repair of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAA/A) on the prevention of paraplegia remains poorly understood.\nMETHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEP) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) during TAA/A repair involving serial segmental artery sacrifice (October 2002 to December 2004) were reviewed.\nRESULTS: Operative mortality was 6%. The median intensive care unit stay was 2.5 days (IQ range: 1-4 days), and the median hospital stay 10.0 days (IQ range: 8-17 days). Potentials remained unchanged during the course of serial segmental artery sacrifice, or could be returned to baseline levels by anesthetic and blood pressure manipulation, in 99 of 100 cases. An average of 8.0 +/- 2.6 segmental artery pairs were sacrificed overall, with an average of 4.5 +/- 2.1 segmental pairs sacrificed between T7 and L1, where the artery of Adamkiewicz is presumed to arise. Postoperative paraplegia occurred in 2 patients. In 1, immediate paraplegia was precipitated by an intraoperative dissection, resulting in 6 hours of lower body ischemia. A second ambulatory patient had severe paraparesis albeit normal cerebral function after resuscitation from a respiratory arrest.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if reimplantation of spinal cord arteries is a waste of time during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study they mentioned had 100 patients with MEP and SSEP monitoring during TAA/A repairs. The key findings were that potentials stayed stable during segmental artery sacrifice in 99 out of 100 cases, and only 2 patients had paraplegia—both due to complications like dissection or respiratory arrest.\n\nHmm, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a resident in vascular surgery. They're probably involved in these procedures and want to know if the time spent reimplanting arteries is necessary. Their main concern is likely the efficiency of the surgery versus the risk of complications. They might be worried about the time it takes and whether it's worth it given the low incidence of paraplegia.\n\nWait, the study shows that in 99 cases, the potentials didn't change, meaning the spinal cord was probably protected. Only two patients had paraplegia, both from other causes. So reimplantation might not be needed in most cases. But why do they do it then? The answer has to address that reimplantation is a precaution, not a routine step. \n\nI remember that the artery of Adamkiewicz is critical. Sacrificing segments above it can lead to ischemia. The study mentions an average of 4.5 segmental pairs sacrificed between T7 and L1. Reimplantation is done to protect that artery. But the data shows that in most cases, the spinal cord is spared because the arteries can be managed without reimplantation. \n\nThe user's deeper need might be to justify the time spent on reimplantation in their practice. They might be looking for evidence to support or challenge the standard procedure. The study's results suggest that reimplantation isn't always necessary because the monitoring shows stability. But it's still done as a safety measure. \n\nAlso, the two cases of paraplegia were due to dissections or respiratory issues, not the reimplantation itself. That's important. So the procedure isn't causing the complications; other factors are. The user might be concerned that reimplantation is adding unnecessary steps, but the study shows it's effective in preventing complications when done.\n\nI should check if the study's methods are relevant. They\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "In 99 of 100 cases, spinal cord function remained stable during segmental artery sacrifice, with paraplegia occurring due to unrelated complications.  \nFinal answer: no", "visible_output": "In 99 of 100 cases, spinal cord function remained stable during segmental artery sacrifice, with paraplegia occurring due to unrelated complications.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_08", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Does the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia exist?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The placement of the superficial cervical plexus block has been the subject of controversy. Although the investing cervical fascia has been considered as an impenetrable barrier, clinically, the placement of the block deep or superficial to the fascia provides the same effective anesthesia. The underlying mechanism is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the three-dimensional organization of connective tissues in the anterior region of the neck.\nMETHODS: Using a combination of dissection, E12 sheet plastination, and confocal microscopy, fascial structures in the anterior cervical triangle were examined in 10 adult human cadavers.\nRESULTS: In the upper cervical region, the fascia of strap muscles in the middle and the fasciae of the submandibular glands on both sides formed a dumbbell-like fascia sheet that had free lateral margins and did not continue with the sternocleidomastoid fascia. In the lower cervical region, no single connective tissue sheet extended directly between the sternocleidomastoid muscles. The fascial structure deep to platysma in the anterior cervical triangle comprised the strap fascia.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia exists. Let me start by recalling the standard anatomy of the cervical fascia. I remember that there are four layers: superficial, pretracheal, deep, and investing. The investing layer is the outermost one, surrounding the neck muscles.\n\nHmm, the context provided talks about a study on the superficial cervical plexus block. The study mentions that the investing fascia was thought to be an impenetrable barrier, but they found that blocks placed deep or superficial to it still worked. The methods involved dissection and imaging in cadavers. The results say that in the upper cervical region, there's a dumbbell-shaped fascia from strap muscles and submandibular glands without connecting to the sternocleidomastoid fascia. In the lower region, no single sheet connects the sternocleidomastoid muscles. The deep fascia under platysma is the strap fascia.\n\nWait, the key point here is that the study is challenging the traditional view. The investing layer is usually described as the deepest layer that surrounds the neck structures. But the study found that in the anterior triangle, there's no continuous investing fascia. Instead, the deep fascia there is the strap fascia. The study says the investing fascia doesn't form a continuous sheet in the anterior region. \n\nI should check if the investing layer is considered to exist elsewhere. The standard anatomy has the investing layer as the outermost, but in the anterior neck, it might not be continuous. The study's results indicate that in the upper cervical region, the fascia doesn't connect to the sternocleidomastoid fascia, meaning there's no single investing layer there. The deep fascia under platysma is strap fascia, which is part of the deep layer but not the investing layer.\n\nThe user might be a medical student or a professional in anesthesiology, given the context about nerve blocks. They probably encountered conflicting information and want clarity. Their deeper need is understanding the anatomical variations to apply it in clinical practice, especially for nerve blocks. They might be confused because some sources say investing fascia is a barrier, but the study shows it's not continuous.\n\nI recall that the investing fascia (deep layer) is continuous with the deep cervical fascia, but in the anterior triangle, it's interrupted. The study's finding that there's no single sheet extending between sternocleidomastoid muscles\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "The study found no continuous investing fascia sheet extending between the sternocleidomastoid muscles in the anterior cervical region.  \nFinal answer: no", "visible_output": "The study found no continuous investing fascia sheet extending between the sternocleidomastoid muscles in the anterior cervical region.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_09", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Can Ambu self-inflating bag and Neopuff infant resuscitator provide adequate and safe manual inflations for infants up to 10 kg weight?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: Manual resuscitation devices for infants and newborns must be able to provide adequate ventilation in a safe and consistent manner across a wide range of patient sizes (0.5-10 kg) and differing clinical states. There are little comparative data assessing biomechanical performance of common infant manual resuscitation devices across the manufacturers' recommended operating weight ranges. We aimed to compare performance of the Ambu self-inflating bag (SIB) with the Neopuff T-piece resuscitator in three resuscitation models.\nMETHODS: Five experienced clinicians delivered targeted ventilation to three lung models differing in compliance, delivery pressures and inflation rates; Preterm (0.5 mL/cmH2O, 25/5 cmH2O, 60 per minute), Term (3 mL/cmH2O, 30/5 cmH2O, 40 per minute) and Infant (9 mL/cmH2O, 35/5 cmH2O, 30 per minute). The Neopuff was examined with three gas inflow rates (5 litres per minute (LPM), 10 LPM and 15 LPM) and the Ambu with no gas inflow.\nRESULTS: 3309 inflations were collected and analysed with analysis of variance for repeated measures. The Neopuff was unable to reach set peak inflation pressures and exhibited seriously elevated positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) with all inflow gas rates (p<0.001) in this infant model. The Ambu SIB accurately delivered targeted pressures in all three models.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if Ambu self-inflating bags and Neopuff infant resuscitators can safely and adequately manually inflate infants up to 10 kg. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study compared these two devices in three different lung models: preterm, term, and infant. \n\nFirst, I need to check the key findings from the study. The Neopuff had issues with not reaching the set peak pressures and high PEEP across all gas inflow rates. That's a problem because high PEEP can cause lung damage, especially in infants. The Ambu SIB, on the other hand, delivered the targeted pressures accurately in all models. \n\nThe user mentioned infants up to 10 kg. The study's models were for 0.5 to 10 kg, so that's relevant. The preterm model was 0.5 mL/cmH2O, which is for very low birth weight, term is 3 mL/cmH2O, and infant is 9 mL/cmH2O. These correspond to different weight ranges. The study tested up to 10 kg, so the data covers the user's query.\n\nWait, the user might be a healthcare professional, maybe a nurse or a doctor in a setting where they use these devices. They could be concerned about choosing the right device for infants, especially in emergencies. Their real need might be ensuring they're not causing harm with the wrong device. They might have heard conflicting info about Neopuff being good for infants but the study shows issues.\n\nThe study found Neopuff couldn't reach peak pressures and had high PEEP. That's critical because in infants, high PEEP can lead to barotrauma or volutrauma. The Ambu worked fine. But the user asked about \"manual inflations.\" The study used experienced clinicians, so it's about skilled use. The Neopuff requires gas flow, which might not be reliable if the clinician isn't careful. \n\nAlso, the context says Neopuff is a T-piece resuscitator. Some people might confuse it with other devices. The study tested it with 5, 10, 15 LPM, but all had issues. The Ambu didn't need gas inflow, so it's simpler. \n\nI should consider if there are any caveats. The study used simulated lung models, not real infants. Real infants have variability, but the study covers the range up to 1\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "The Ambu self-inflating bag accurately delivered targeted pressures across all lung models, including those simulating infants up to 10 kg, while the Neopuff failed to reach set pressures and produced harmful elevated PEEP.  \nFinal answer: yes", "visible_output": "The Ambu self-inflating bag accurately delivered targeted pressures across all lung models, including those simulating infants up to 10 kg, while the Neopuff failed to reach set pressures and produced harmful elevated PEEP.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_10", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Parasacral sciatic nerve block: does the elicited motor response predict the success rate?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the tibial and the peroneal evoked motor response with regard to efficacy of sciatic nerve block using the parasacral approach.\nMETHODS: Twenty-six ASA I-III patients scheduled for elective lower limb surgery were randomized to receive a parasacral sciatic block, using a nerve stimulator technique seeking either a tibial (n = 14) or peroneal (n = 12) motor response. After the evoked motor response was obtained, a solution of 10 mL 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine (actual final concentration of epinephrine, 1/160,000) was slowly injected through the needle. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed every 5 min for 30 min by an anesthesiologist blinded to the elicited motor response. If the block was not complete 30 min after injection of the local anesthetics, it was considered as failed, and general anesthesia was supplemented.\nRESULTS: Time to perform the block and level of minimal and maximal stimulation were not different between groups. The success rate of complete block was significantly higher in the tibial compared to the peroneal group (11 of 14 vs 2 of 12; P = 0.002).\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether the elicited motor response in a parasacral sciatic nerve block predicts the success rate. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a specific study comparing tibial versus peroneal motor responses in parasacral sciatic blocks.\n\nFirst, I need to understand the study details. The study had 26 patients randomized into two groups: tibial (n=14) and peroneal (n=12). They used nerve stimulation to elicit a motor response before injecting local anesthetics. The success was defined as a complete block at 30 minutes. The results showed a higher success rate in the tibial group (11/14) compared to peroneal (2/12), with a p-value of 0.002. \n\nHmm, the key point here is that the tibial response group had a higher success rate. But the user is asking if the elicited motor response itself predicts success. The study directly compares the two responses, so the answer should be yes, based on this data. But I should check if there's more nuance.\n\nWait, the study says the success rate was significantly higher in the tibial group. That implies that eliciting the tibial response correlates with better outcomes. But does that mean the response predicts success? The study's design is a bit specific. They were testing whether using tibial vs. peroneal stimulation leads to different success rates. So, the result suggests that targeting the tibial nerve (via the motor response) is more predictive of a successful block than peroneal.\n\nI should also consider the methodology. They used a nerve stimulator to get the motor response before injection. The success was assessed after 30 minutes. The study found that when they elicited the tibial response, more patients achieved a complete block. So, in this context, yes, the elicited motor response (tibial) predicted higher success.\n\nBut is there a caveat? The user might be a medical professional, maybe an anesthesiologist or a student. They probably want to know if they can use the motor response as a reliable predictor in practice. The study shows a statistically significant difference, but the peroneal group had a low success rate (2 out of 12). That's important because it suggests that peroneal stimulation might not be as reliable. \n\nAlso, the study is prospective and randomized\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "Eliciting a tibial motor response is associated with a significantly higher success rate of complete sciatic nerve block compared to peroneal response.  \nFinal answer: yes", "visible_output": "Eliciting a tibial motor response is associated with a significantly higher success rate of complete sciatic nerve block compared to peroneal response.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_11", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Does solid culture for tuberculosis influence clinical decision making in India?\n\nContext:\nSETTING: Medical units at an academic tertiary referral hospital in Southern India.\nOBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of solid culture on Löwenstein-Jensen medium on clinical decision making.\nDESIGN: In a retrospective review of 150 culture-positive and 150 culture-negative consecutively sampled tuberculosis (TB) suspects, treatment decisions were analysed at presentation, after the availability of culture detection results and after the availability of drug susceptibility testing (DST) culture results.\nRESULTS: A total of 124 (82.7%) culture-positive patients and 35 (23.3%) culture-negative patients started anti-tuberculosis treatment prior to receiving their culture results; 101 patients (33.7%) returned for their results; two (1.3%) initiated treatment based on positive culture and no culture-negative patients discontinued treatment. DST was performed on 119 (79.3%) positive cultures: 30 (25.2%) showed any resistance, eight (6.7%) showed multidrug resistance and one (0.84%) showed extensively drug-resistant TB. Twenty-eight patients (23.5%) returned for their DST results. Based on DST, treatment was modified in four patients (3.4%).\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether solid culture for tuberculosis influences clinical decision making in India, specifically in the context of a study done at an academic tertiary hospital in Southern India. Let me go through the provided context carefully.\n\nFirst, I need to recall what solid culture means in TB diagnostics. Solid culture here refers to Löwenstein-Jensen (LJ) medium, which is a standard solid culture medium used for TB detection. The study is looking at how this culture impacts clinical decisions—like when treatment starts, whether patients stop treatment, and how drug susceptibility testing (DST) results affect decisions.\n\nLooking at the results: 82.7% of culture-positive patients (124 out of 150) started treatment before getting their culture results. That's a significant number. Only 1.3% (2 patients) started treatment based on positive culture results. The culture-negative group had 23.3% starting treatment before results, which is lower than the positive group. \n\nHmm, the key point here is that most patients started treatment before culture results were available. The study mentions that 101 patients (33.7%) returned for results, meaning they didn't start treatment immediately. But the fact that 82.7% started treatment prior to culture results suggests that solid culture results aren't influencing the initial treatment decisions much. In fact, the data shows that treatment initiation is happening before culture is available, so the culture results themselves aren't changing the decision to start treatment.\n\nThen there's the DST part. They did DST on 79.3% of positive cultures. Out of those, 25.2% showed resistance, 6.7% MDR, and 0.84% XDR. But only 23.5% returned for DST results, and treatment was modified in just 4 patients (3.4%). That's a very small percentage. So even when DST results are available, they don't lead to many changes in treatment. \n\nThe study's objective was to see if solid culture (LJ) influences clinical decisions. But the results indicate that patients are starting treatment before culture results come in, so the culture results aren't affecting the initial decision. The DST results also don't cause many treatment modifications. \n\nI should consider why this might be. In India, TB treatment guidelines often recommend starting treatment immediately based on clinical suspicion, especially in resource-limited settings where culture takes time. So the high rate of treatment initiation\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "Solid culture results do not significantly influence initial treatment decisions, as 82.7% of culture-positive patients started treatment before culture results were available.  \nFinal answer: no", "visible_output": "Solid culture results do not significantly influence initial treatment decisions, as 82.7% of culture-positive patients started treatment before culture results were available.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_12", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Residual fundus or neofundus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: is fundectomy safe and effective as revision surgery?\n\nContext:\nINTRODUCTION: Up to 30 % of patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy require revision surgery for inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and/or the development of severe upper gastrointestinal symptoms. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic fundectomy (LF) in cases of a residual fundus/neofundus development regarding GERD symptoms.\nMETHODS: The study group comprised 19 patients (17 female; mean BMI 35.4 kg/m(2)) divided into 2 groups. Group A (n = 10) patients with severe GERD and evidence of residual fundus/neofundus, Hiatal hernia with good results in terms of weight loss. Group B (n = 9) patients with severe GERD, a residual fundus/neofundus, inadequate weight loss or weight regain. Fundectomy was indicated when a residual fundus/neofundus was associated with severe GERD symptoms. The presence of a residual fundus/neofundus was assessed by a barium swallow and/or multislice computed tomography.\nRESULTS: No mortality or intra-operative complications occurred. Five postoperative complications occurred: 2 cases of bleeding, 1 mid-gastric stenosis and 2 leaks (10.5 %). All patients experienced improvements in their GERD symptoms and stopped PPI treatment. Group B exhibited an additional %EWL of 53.4 % at 24 months.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking about residual fundus or neofundus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and whether fundectomy is safe and effective as revision surgery. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a retrospective study with 19 patients divided into two groups: Group A (10 patients) with severe GERD and residual fundus/neofundus, and Group B (9 patients) with similar issues but also inadequate weight loss or regain. The study found no mortality or intra-op complications, five post-op complications (10.5%), and all patients improved GERD symptoms and stopped PPIs. Group B had an additional 53.4% weight loss at 24 months.\n\nFirst, I need to verify the key points from the study. The main question is about safety and efficacy of fundectomy for this specific issue. The study shows no deaths or major intra-op complications, which is good. The post-op complications were minor: bleeding, stenosis, leaks. The fact that all patients improved GERD symptoms is crucial because that's the primary indication—severe GERD due to residual fundus. Also, Group B's additional weight loss suggests fundectomy might help with weight loss too, not just GERD.\n\nWait, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a gastroenterologist, considering revision surgery options. They probably want to know if fundectomy is a viable option for their patients who have persistent GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. The deeper need here could be understanding if they should perform fundectomy without risking complications, especially since some patients might have had weight regain or inadequate loss.\n\nI should check if the study's findings are robust. It's a retrospective study, so limitations like selection bias and small sample size (n=19) are important. The authors mention barium swallow and CT for assessing residual fundus, which is standard. But they didn't have a control group, so it's hard to isolate fundectomy's effect from other factors. Also, Group B had weight issues, so the weight loss improvement might be due to the fundectomy itself or other factors like continued diet adherence.\n\nThe user might also be concerned about the safety profile. The complications were low (10.5%), but leaks and stenosis are serious. They need to know if the risks are acceptable compared to other revisions like redo sleeve or gastric bypass. The study says all patients stopped PPIs, which is a big plus for GER\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "Laparoscopic fundectomy is safe and effective for patients with residual neofundus and severe GERD, with significant symptom improvement and weight loss in the revision cohort.  \nFinal answer: yes", "visible_output": "Laparoscopic fundectomy is safe and effective for patients with residual neofundus and severe GERD, with significant symptom improvement and weight loss in the revision cohort.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_13", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Are behavioural risk factors to be blamed for the conversion from optimal blood pressure to hypertensive status in Black South Africans?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: Longitudinal cohort studies in sub-Saharan Africa are urgently needed to understand cardiovascular disease development. We, therefore, explored health behaviours and conventional risk factors of African individuals with optimal blood pressure (BP) (≤ 120/80 mm Hg), and their 5-year prediction for the development of hypertension.\nMETHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study in the North West Province, South Africa, started in 2005 and included African volunteers (n = 1994; aged>30 years) from a sample of 6000 randomly selected households in rural and urban areas.\nRESULTS: At baseline, 48% of the participants were hypertensive (≥ 140/90 mmHg). Those with optimal BP (n = 478) were followed at a success rate of 70% for 5 years (213 normotensive, 68 hypertensive, 57 deceased). Africans that became hypertensive smoked more than the normotensive individuals (68.2% vs 49.8%), and they also had a greater waist circumference [ratio of geometric means of 0.94 cm (95% CI: 0.86-0.99)] and greater amount of γ-glutamyltransferase [0.74 U/l (95% CI: 0.62-0.88)]at baseline. The 5-year change in BP was independently explained by baseline γ-glutamyltransferase [R(2) = 0.23, β = 0.13 U/l (95% CI: 0.01-0.19)]. Alcohol intake also predicted central systolic BP and carotid cross-sectional wall area (CSWA) at follow-up. Waist circumference was another predictor of BP changes [β = 0.18 cm (95% CI: 0.05-0.24)]and CSWA. HIV infection was inversely associated with increased BP.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether behavioral risk factors are to be blamed for the conversion from optimal blood pressure to hypertensive status in Black South Africans. Let me start by understanding the context provided. The study is from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study in South Africa. They looked at Black South Africans with optimal BP (≤120/80 mmHg) and followed them for five years to see who developed hypertension.\n\nFirst, I need to recall the key findings from the results section. The study found that those who became hypertensive had higher smoking rates (68.2% vs 49.8%), larger waist circumference (geometric mean ratio 0.94), and higher γ-glutamyltransferase (0.74 U/l). Also, alcohol intake predicted central systolic BP and carotid wall area. Waist circumference was a predictor for BP changes. HIV infection was inversely associated with increased BP, which is interesting but maybe not directly relevant here.\n\nThe user's question is about behavioral risk factors being \"blamed.\" That's a bit strong. Blaming implies responsibility, but in public health, we usually talk about modifiable risks without assigning blame. I should be careful not to use judgmental language. The study shows associations, not causation. So, I need to clarify that correlation isn't causation.\n\nLooking at the behavioral factors mentioned: smoking, alcohol, physical activity (though not explicitly stated here), diet. The study highlights smoking, waist circumference (which relates to obesity, a behavioral factor like diet and physical inactivity), and alcohol. γ-glutamyltransferase is a liver enzyme, often linked to alcohol consumption and liver disease, so that's a marker for alcohol-related damage. \n\nThe key point is that the study identified these as predictors. For example, baseline smoking was higher in those who developed hypertension. Similarly, waist circumference and γ-glutamyltransferase were independent predictors. But the question is whether these behavioral factors are \"to be blamed.\" The answer should emphasize that while these factors are significant predictors, they're not the sole cause. There are other factors like genetics, socioeconomic conditions, healthcare access, which might play roles too.\n\nAlso, the study is from South Africa, specifically Black South Africans. The context mentions the population is African, so cultural and socioeconomic factors specific to this group should be considered. For instance, in some communities, high salt intake due to dietary habits or limited access to fresh food might contribute.\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "Behavioral factors such as smoking, waist circumference, and alcohol intake were independently associated with the development of hypertension in Black South Africans with optimal blood pressure at baseline.  \nFinal answer: maybe", "visible_output": "Behavioral factors such as smoking, waist circumference, and alcohol intake were independently associated with the development of hypertension in Black South Africans with optimal blood pressure at baseline.  \nFinal answer: maybe", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "maybe", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_14", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Prognosis of low-tone sudden deafness - does it inevitably progress to Meniere's disease?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVES: To investigate whether low-tone SD was a precursor of Meniere's disease and whether patients with low-tone SD suffered from endolymphatic hydrops.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective case review in the university hospital. A total of 184 patients with low-tone SD were divided into two groups with single and recurrent episodes. The progress, follow-up audiograms, and ECochG results of the patients were reviewed and compared with those of patients with high-tone SD and Meniere's disease.\nRESULTS: In all, 83 of 177 patients with low-tone SD unaccompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; 15 of the 83 developed vertiginous attacks. The remaining 94 patients had a single episode. Three of the seven patients with low-tone SD accompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; two of the three were subsequently confirmed to have Meniere's disease. The other four had a single episode. No difference in rate of progress from SD to Meniere's disease was observed among the low-tone and the high-tone SD groups. The average -SP/AP of each group with a single episode is smaller than that of other groups with recurrent episodes and Meniere's disease.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking about the prognosis of low-tone sudden deafness (SD) and whether it inevitably progresses to Meniere's disease. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a study with 184 patients divided into groups with single and recurrent episodes of low-tone SD. The key points from the results are that out of 83 patients without vertigo who had recurrent hearing loss, 15 developed vertigo. Among the 7 with vertigo, 3 had recurrent hearing loss, and 2 of those were later diagnosed with Meniere's. The study also notes no difference in progression to Meniere's between low-tone and high-tone SD groups.\n\nHmm, the user might be a patient or a caregiver who's worried after being diagnosed with low-tone SD. They're probably concerned about developing Meniere's and what the future holds. Their main question is if it's inevitable, but they might also be anxious about the progression and whether they need specific treatments.\n\nI should check the study's findings carefully. The study shows that only 2 out of 3 patients with recurrent hearing loss and vertigo developed Meniere's. That's a small number, so it's not inevitable. Also, the study emphasizes that low-tone SD without vertigo (the majority) doesn't progress to Meniere's. The key point here is that Meniere's disease typically involves vertigo, tinnitus, hearing loss, and ear fullness, whereas low-tone SD is a sudden hearing loss without those symptoms initially.\n\nWait, the user might not realize that Meniere's is a specific condition with distinct symptoms. They might confuse sudden hearing loss with Meniere's progression. Clarifying the symptoms could help. Also, the study mentions that the average SP/AP ratio is smaller in single-episode cases, which might indicate less severe or different pathology.\n\nThe user's deeper need is likely reassurance. They want to know if their condition will get worse and if they should take action. The answer should stress that low-tone SD doesn't inevitably lead to Meniere's. Most cases are single episodes and don't progress. Only a minority with recurrent episodes and vertigo might develop Meniere's, but even then, it's not certain.\n\nI should also mention that the study didn't find a difference between low-tone and high-tone SD in progression to Meniere's. That's important because some might think low-tone is more dangerous. But the data shows otherwise. The recurrence rate is higher in low-tone SD, but\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "Only 2 out of 3 patients with recurrent low-tone SD and vertigo progressed to Meniere's disease.  \nFinal answer: no", "visible_output": "Only 2 out of 3 patients with recurrent low-tone SD and vertigo progressed to Meniere's disease.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_15", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Is unsafe sexual behaviour increasing among HIV-infected individuals?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The number of new diagnoses of HIV infection is rising in the northwestern hemisphere and it is becoming increasingly important to understand the mechanisms behind this trend.\nOBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether reported unsafe sexual behaviour among HIV- infected individuals is changing over time.\nDESIGN: Participants in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study were asked about their sexual practices every 6 months for 3 years during regular follow-up of the cohort beginning on 1 April 2000.\nMETHODS: : Logistic regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations assuming a constant correlation between responses from the same individual.\nRESULTS: At least one sexual behaviour questionnaire was obtained for 6545 HIV-infected individuals and the median number of questionnaires completed per individual was five. There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sex over time in this population [odds ratio (OR), 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-1.05]. Females (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.19-1.60), 15-30 year olds (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47), those with HIV-positive partners (OR, 12.58; 95% CI, 10.84-14.07) and those with occasional partners (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.87-3.67) were more likely to report unsafe sex. There was no evidence of a response bias over time, but individuals were less willing to leave questions about their sexual behaviour unanswered or ambiguous (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97).\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if unsafe sexual behavior is increasing among HIV-infected individuals. Let me look at the context they provided. \n\nHmm, the study is from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, tracking people every six months for three years starting in 2000. They collected data on sexual practices. The main finding says there was no evidence of an increase in unsafe sex over time. The odds ratio is 1.0 with a confidence interval of 0.96 to 1.05. That's a bit tricky because the confidence interval includes 1, which means statistically, there's no significant change.\n\nWait, the user might be concerned about rising HIV cases in the northwestern hemisphere. The background mentions new diagnoses are rising there, but the study specifically looks at HIV-infected individuals, not the general population. So even if new infections are up, this study is about people already infected. That's an important distinction. The user might be conflating the two.\n\nAlso, the study found certain groups had higher rates of unsafe sex: females, younger people (15-30), those with HIV-positive partners, and those with occasional partners. But the key point is that over time, there wasn't an increase. The response bias part says people were less likely to leave questions unanswered, which might mean they're being more honest now, but the study adjusted for that.\n\nThe user's deeper need might be understanding if current HIV trends are due to more risky behavior among infected people. But the study shows no increase in unsafe sex among the infected cohort. Maybe they're worried about transmission rates increasing because of this? But the study doesn't address transmission—just self-reported unsafe behavior. \n\nI should clarify that the study doesn't show an increase in unsafe sex over time among those already infected. The rising new diagnoses in the region could be from other factors, like better testing or different populations. The user might need to know that while unsafe behavior isn't increasing in this group, other factors could be driving new infections. \n\nAlso, the confidence interval being close to 1 is important. Some might misinterpret the CI as \"no change,\" but technically, it's not statistically significant. The study says \"no evidence of an increase,\" so the answer is no. \n\nI should make sure not to confuse this with the general population. The question is specifically about HIV-infected individuals. The study's population is already infected, so their behavior trends are what matter here. \n\nThe user might be a student\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507", "raw_output": "There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sexual behavior among HIV-infected individuals over time.  \nFinal answer: no", "visible_output": "There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sexual behavior among HIV-infected individuals over time.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.7, "top_p": 0.8, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 128, "pubmedqa": 80, "other": 96}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 80}}

runs/20260322T021329Z/iteration_01_pubmedqa_train_generation/pubmedqa_extractor_visible_outputs.request_params.json

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+{
+  "temperature": 0.7,
+  "top_p": 0.8,
+  "top_k": 20,
+  "min_p": 0.0,
+  "max_new_tokens": {
+    "aime": 128,
+    "pubmedqa": 80,
+    "other": 96
+  }
+}

runs/20260322T021329Z/iteration_01_pubmedqa_train_generation/pubmedqa_extractor_visible_outputs.request_rows.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_01", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary: do they have Lynch syndrome?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; HNPCC) is an autosomal-dominant cancer predisposition syndrome that increases risk for multiple cancers, including colon, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. Revised Bethesda Criteria recommend that patients with two HNPCC-associated cancers undergo molecular evaluation to determine whether they have a mismatch repair (MMR) defect associated with HNPCC. The purpose of our study was to determine the likelihood of MMR defects (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1) in women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2004, 102 women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers were identified; 59 patients had tumor blocks available for analysis. Patients were divided into risk groups based on family history: high (met Amsterdam criteria), medium (personal history or first-degree relative with an HNPCC-associated cancer), and low (all others). Protein expression for MSH2, MSH6, and MLH1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Microsatellite instability and MLH1 promoter methylation analyses were performed on a subset of cases.\nRESULTS: Median age was 50 years. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria for HNPCC. Five additional patients, all medium-risk, had molecular findings consistent with a germline mutation of either MSH2 or MLH1. None of the low-risk patients had molecular results consistent with a germline mutation.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary have Lynch syndrome. Let me start by recalling what Lynch syndrome is. It's an autosomal-dominant disorder that increases the risk for colorectal, endometrial, and ovarian cancers, among others. The key here is that Lynch syndrome involves defects in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, like MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, or PMS2.\n\nThe context provided is from a study. The study looked at 102 women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers between 1989 and 2004. They had 59 with tumor blocks available. They divided patients into risk groups based on family history: high (Amsterdam criteria), medium (personal or family history of HNPCC cancers), and low (others). They checked protein expression via immunohistochemistry for MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and also did microsatellite instability and MLH1 methylation tests on some.\n\nThe results say that median age was 50. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria (which is a high-risk family history), but that's only two out of 59. Then five additional medium-risk patients had molecular findings consistent with germline mutations in MSH2 or MLH1. None of the low-risk patients had such mutations. So, overall, out of the 59, 7 had some molecular evidence of Lynch (2 high-risk plus 5 medium-risk). But the question is about the likelihood in general.\n\nWait, the user might be a medical student or a healthcare professional trying to understand if these patients should be tested for Lynch. They might be dealing with a patient who has both cancers and want to know the next steps. The study shows that only a small percentage (7 out of 59) had Lynch-related mutations. But the study's sample is from 1989-2004, which might be outdated. Also, the criteria for Lynch have evolved since then.\n\nI should check the key points from the study. The revised Bethesda criteria mention that if someone has two HNPCC-associated cancers, they should get molecular testing. Here, synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers are both HNPCC-associated. So the study is relevant. The findings show that among the patients, only 7% (roughly) had Lynch mutations. But the two high-risk patients were already identified by\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_02", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Is the Retromandibular Transparotid Approach a Reliable Option for the Surgical Treatment of Condylar Fractures?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: This study evaluated the outcomes and complications of the surgical treatment of condylar fractures by the retromandibular transparotid approach. The authors hypothesized that such an approach would be safe and reliable for the treatment of most condylar fractures.\nMATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients who underwent surgical reduction of a condylar fracture from January 2012 to December 2014 at the Clinic of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Hospital of Verona (Verona, Italy) was performed. Inclusion criteria were having undergone surgical treatment of condylar fractures with a retromandibular transparotid approach and the availability of computed tomograms of the preoperative and postoperative facial skeleton with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Static and dynamic occlusal function, temporomandibular joint health status, presence of neurologic impairments, and esthetic outcomes were evaluated in all patients.\nRESULTS: The sample was composed of 25 patients. Preinjury occlusion and temporomandibular joint health were restored in most patients. Esthetic outcomes were deemed satisfactory by clinicians and patients. Neither permanent neurologic impairments nor major postoperative complications were observed.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether the Retromandibular Transparotid Approach is a reliable option for treating condylar fractures. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study they mentioned is a retrospective analysis from Verona University Hospital between 2012 and 2014. They looked at 25 patients who had this specific surgical approach.\n\nFirst, I need to break down what the study says. The purpose was to check if this approach is safe and reliable. They compared pre-op and post-op CT scans, evaluated occlusion, TMJ health, neurologic issues, and aesthetics. The results show that most patients had restored occlusion and TMJ health. No permanent neurologic damage or major complications were reported. Aesthetics were good too.\n\nHmm, the user might be a medical student, a surgeon, or a patient. If they're a student or surgeon, they probably want to know if this approach is worth learning or using. If it's a patient, they might be worried about risks. But the question is phrased technically, so likely a professional. They need evidence-based info for clinical decisions.\n\nWait, the study has limitations. It's retrospective with only 25 patients. Small sample size means results might not be generalizable. Also, no control group—how do they know it's better than other approaches? The authors assumed it's safe, but without comparison, it's hard to say. They mention it's reliable for \"most\" fractures, but the study doesn't specify what \"most\" means. \n\nI should check if there are other studies. The context doesn't mention others, so I'll stick to this one. The key points: no major complications, good outcomes. But reliability? The term is tricky. In surgery, reliability implies consistency and low failure rates. Here, the approach worked for 25 cases without issues, but without a larger sample, it's not definitive. Also, condylar fractures vary—complex ones might not be covered. The study says \"most,\" so maybe they excluded severe cases?\n\nThe user might be concerned about alternatives. Like, is this approach better than others? The study doesn't compare it to other methods, so I can't say. But the authors hypothesized it's safe and reliable, and the results support that in their sample. \n\nAlso, the approach name: retromandibular transparotid. I remember that transparotid means through the parotid tissue\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_03", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Is patient outcome compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVE: • Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) remains controversial in terms of oncologic outcomes, especially during the initial experience. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of initial experience of robotic cystectomy programs on oncologic outcomes and overall survival.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: • Utilizing a prospectively maintained, single institution robotic cystectomy database, we identified 164 consecutive patients who underwent RARC since November 2005. • After stratification by age group, gender, pathologic T stage, lymph node status, surgical margin status, and sequential case number; we used chi-squared analyses to correlate sequential case number to operative time, surgical blood loss, lymph node yield, and surgical margin status. • We also addressed the relationship between complications and sequential case number. We then utilized Cox proportional hazard modeling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to correlate variables to overall mortality.\nRESULTS: • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with increased incidence of complications, surgical blood loss, or positive surgical margins (P= 0.780, P= 0.548, P= 0.545). Case number was, however, significantly associated with shorter operative time and mean number of lymph nodes retrieved (P<0.001, P<0.001). • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with survival; however, tumour stage, the presence of lymph node metastases, and positive surgical margins were significantly associated with death. • Although being the largest of its kind, this was a small study with short follow-up when compared to open cystectomy series.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether patient outcomes are compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. The study they mentioned looked at 164 patients who had RARC from 2005 onwards. They stratified patients by age, gender, pathologic stage, lymph node status, surgical margins, and sequential case number.\n\nHmm, the key point here is the impact of being an early case in the program. The results showed that sequential case number wasn't significantly linked to complications, blood loss, or positive margins. That's important because those are common concerns about initial experiences. But they did find that as case numbers increased, operative time decreased and lymph node yield went up. So technically, the surgeons got better at the procedure over time.\n\nWait, the user might be a medical professional or a student researching this topic. They probably want to know if starting with robot-assisted cystectomy is risky for patients. The study's conclusion says that initial cases don't have worse outcomes in terms of complications or mortality. But the study is small and has short follow-up, which is a limitation. \n\nI should check the survival part. The results mention that tumor stage, lymph node metastases, and positive margins were significant for mortality, not the case number. So even in early cases, if the cancer is advanced or margins are positive, outcomes are worse. But the initial experience itself doesn't seem to hurt outcomes. \n\nThe user might be worried about adopting new tech. They might be a surgeon considering starting a robot program and want reassurance. The study shows that initial cases aren't worse, but the learning curve affects efficiency—shorter surgery time and more lymph nodes. That's a plus for accuracy, maybe reducing complications indirectly. \n\nAlso, the study is from a single institution, so it's not a broad comparison. But since it's the first study of its kind, it's a solid starting point. The user might need to know that while outcomes aren't worse initially, the learning curve means they should have experienced surgeons to handle early cases. \n\nI should emphasize that the main takeaway is no increased complications or mortality in early cases. The compromise isn't there, but efficiency improves with experience. The user's deeper need might be whether to invest in robot-assisted surgery early on without fearing worse outcomes for patients. The answer here is yes, initial outcomes are comparable, but ongoing learning is beneficial for better results over time.\n</think>\n\nBased **solely on\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_04", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Are sports medicine journals relevant and applicable to practitioners and athletes?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence base of sports medicine research and assess how relevant and applicable it is to everyday practice.\nMETHODS: Original research articles, short reports, and case reports published in four major sport and exercise medicine journals were studied and classified according to the main topic of study and type of subjects used.\nRESULTS: The most common topic was sports science, and very few studies related to the treatment of injuries and medical conditions. The majority of published articles used healthy subjects sampled from the sedentary population, and few studies have been carried out on injured participants.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if sports medicine journals are relevant and applicable to practitioners and athletes. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. The context mentions a study that looked at four major sports medicine journals. The key findings were that the most common topic was sports science, with few studies on injury treatment. Also, most articles used healthy sedentary subjects, not injured athletes.\n\nHmm, the user is probably a practitioner—maybe a physical therapist, sports medic, coach, or an athlete themselves. They want to know if the journals they read will help them in real life. But deeper, they might be worried that the research they're reading isn't practical. Like, if they're treating an injury, do they need to read these journals? Or maybe they're a student trying to understand if this field is worth their time.\n\nThe context says that only a few studies focus on treatment. That's a big point. Practitioners need injury management info, but if the journals are mostly about sports science (like performance metrics, physiology), that might not directly help with treating injuries. Also, the subjects are often healthy people, not injured athletes. So the research might not apply to someone with a sprained ankle or something.\n\nWait, the user might be concerned about time. They have busy schedules and don't want to read irrelevant stuff. They need quick, actionable info. The context shows that the evidence base is skewed towards healthy populations, which means the journals might not address real-world injuries. That's a problem for practitioners dealing with actual patients.\n\nAnother angle: athletes might think the journals have the latest training methods. But if the studies are on sedentary people, the findings might not translate. For example, a study on muscle strength in non-athletes might not apply to a soccer player recovering from a knee injury. So applicability is low here.\n\nI should also consider the \"relevant\" part. The context says sports science is common. For athletes, that could be relevant for performance, but if they're dealing with injuries, maybe not. Practitioners might need more clinical studies. The study found few injury treatment studies, so the journals might not be sufficient for that.\n\nThe user's deeper need might be about efficiency. They want to know if they should spend time reading these journals or if there's better sources. Maybe they've noticed that the research doesn't help them in practice and are frustrated. They might be looking for validation that it's okay to focus elsewhere, like clinical guidelines or specific injury protocols.\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_05", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Is etoricoxib effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: Heterotopic ossification is a common complication after total hip arthroplasty. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to prevent heterotopic ossifications effectively, however gastrointestinal complaints are reported frequently. In this study, we investigated whether etoricoxib, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor that produces fewer gastrointestinal side effects, is an effective alternative for the prevention of heterotopic ossification.\nMETHODS: We investigated the effectiveness of oral etoricoxib 90 mg for seven days in a prospective two-stage study design for phase-2 clinical trials in a small sample of patients (n = 42). A cemented primary total hip arthroplasty was implanted for osteoarthritis. Six months after surgery, heterotopic ossification was determined on anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using the Brooker classification.\nRESULTS: No heterotopic ossification was found in 62 % of the patients that took etoricoxib; 31 % of the patients had Brooker grade 1 and 7 % Brooker grade 2 ossification.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if etoricoxib is effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty. Let me look at the context they provided.\n\nFirst, the study they mentioned is a phase-2 trial with 42 patients. The purpose was to see if etoricoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor with fewer GI side effects, works better than regular NSAIDs for preventing heterotopic ossification (HO). The key here is that they compared it to what's already known—NSAIDs are effective but cause GI issues. \n\nThe results say 62% of patients taking etoricoxib had no HO. That's a pretty good rate. But wait, the study is small (n=42) and phase-2, so it's not a large-scale trial. The Brooker classification shows 31% grade 1 and 7% grade 2 ossification. The control group isn't mentioned here, which is a bit odd. In phase-2 trials, they usually have a control group. The context says it's a two-stage study, but the results only report the etoricoxib group. Hmm, maybe the comparison is implied? Or perhaps the study didn't have a control group? The user's context doesn't specify the control group's outcomes. That's a limitation.\n\nThe user might be a medical professional, like an orthopedic surgeon or a patient. If they're a surgeon, they care about efficacy and safety. The study shows etoricoxib reduced HO compared to what? Without a control group, it's hard to say. But the context says \"we investigated whether etoricoxib... is an effective alternative,\" so maybe the study was designed to compare it against standard care? Wait, the context mentions NSAIDs are known to prevent HO, so etoricoxib is being tested as a better alternative. But the results only give the etoricoxib group's data. \n\nI recall that in some studies, they might use a historical control or a placebo group. Here, it's a two-stage study. The results say 62% no HO, but without knowing the baseline rate, it's tricky. For example, if the standard is 40% no HO, then 62% is better. But the context doesn't provide that. \n\nAlso, the study duration is seven days of etoricoxib. HO prevention usually\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_06", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Is minimally invasive mitral valve repair with artificial chords reproducible and applicable in routine surgery?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVES: Traditional resectional techniques and chordal transfer are difficult to apply in video-assisted mitral valve repair. Using artificial chords appears easier in this setting. The purpose of this study was to review the effectiveness and reproducibility of neochordal repair as a routine approach to minimally invasive mitral repair, and to assess the stability of neochord implantation using the figure-of-eight suture without pledgets in this setting.\nMETHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve repair from 2008 to 2013. The primary endpoints were recurrent mitral regurgitation and reoperation.\nRESULTS: A total of 426 consecutive patients were included during the study period, with a mean age of 55 ± 18 years. Neochords were used in all patients, and in association with leaflet resection in 47 patients. One patient was not repairable and underwent valve replacement (repair rate, 99.8%). Fifteen patients had Grade I (3.5%) regurgitation, whereas the remainder had none. Patients were fast-tracked, with 25% extubated in the operation theatre and the remainder within 6 h. There were 5 deaths within 30 days (1.2%). Follow-up ranged 3-60 months, during which all of the patients remained with no or trace mitral regurgitation. No de-insertion or rupture of any neochords was found, and no patients required a reoperation.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether minimally invasive mitral valve repair with artificial chords is reproducible and applicable in routine surgery. Let me start by going through the context they provided. \n\nFirst, the study is a retrospective review from 2008 to 2013 with 426 patients. The main points here are that they used artificial chords in all patients, with leaflet resection in 47 cases. The repair rate was 99.8%, which is really high. That's a good sign for reproducibility because almost all patients were successfully repaired without needing valve replacement.\n\nThe outcomes show that 15 patients (3.5%) had Grade I regurgitation, which is mild. The rest had none. Also, no neochord de-insertion or rupture was reported. That's crucial because if the artificial chords were coming loose or breaking, that would be a problem. Plus, no reoperations were needed. That suggests the technique is stable and reliable.\n\nThe study mentions that patients were fast-tracked, with 25% extubated in the operating room and others within 6 hours. That's a quick recovery time, which is a plus for routine use. The 30-day mortality was 1.2%, which is low, especially considering the patient age (mean 55 ± 18 years). \n\nHmm, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a cardiac resident, looking to implement this technique. They probably want to know if this method is something they can rely on day-to-day without too many complications. The key here is reproducibility—can different surgeons do this consistently? The study shows high success rates and no failures, but it's a retrospective study. That means they didn't have a control group or multiple surgeons doing the same technique. Still, the large sample size (426 patients) adds weight to the findings.\n\nAlso, the technique uses figure-of-eight sutures without pledgets. The context says they assessed stability without pledgets, which is interesting because pledgets can cause tissue damage. Using non-pledget sutures might reduce complications, which is good for routine use. \n\nWait, the user might be concerned about the learning curve. The study doesn't mention training or how many surgeons were involved. But since it's a retrospective review, it's possible that the same team did all the procedures, which could affect reproducibility across different surgeons. However, the high repair rate and\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_07", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair: is reimplantation of spinal cord arteries a waste of time?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The impact of different strategies for management of intercostal and lumbar arteries during repair of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAA/A) on the prevention of paraplegia remains poorly understood.\nMETHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEP) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) during TAA/A repair involving serial segmental artery sacrifice (October 2002 to December 2004) were reviewed.\nRESULTS: Operative mortality was 6%. The median intensive care unit stay was 2.5 days (IQ range: 1-4 days), and the median hospital stay 10.0 days (IQ range: 8-17 days). Potentials remained unchanged during the course of serial segmental artery sacrifice, or could be returned to baseline levels by anesthetic and blood pressure manipulation, in 99 of 100 cases. An average of 8.0 +/- 2.6 segmental artery pairs were sacrificed overall, with an average of 4.5 +/- 2.1 segmental pairs sacrificed between T7 and L1, where the artery of Adamkiewicz is presumed to arise. Postoperative paraplegia occurred in 2 patients. In 1, immediate paraplegia was precipitated by an intraoperative dissection, resulting in 6 hours of lower body ischemia. A second ambulatory patient had severe paraparesis albeit normal cerebral function after resuscitation from a respiratory arrest.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if reimplantation of spinal cord arteries is a waste of time during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study they mentioned had 100 patients with MEP and SSEP monitoring during TAA/A repairs. The key findings were that potentials stayed stable during segmental artery sacrifice in 99 out of 100 cases, and only 2 patients had paraplegia—both due to complications like dissection or respiratory arrest.\n\nHmm, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a resident in vascular surgery. They're probably involved in these procedures and want to know if the time spent reimplanting arteries is necessary. Their main concern is likely the efficiency of the surgery versus the risk of complications. They might be worried about the time it takes and whether it's worth it given the low incidence of paraplegia.\n\nWait, the study shows that in 99 cases, the potentials didn't change, meaning the spinal cord was probably protected. Only two patients had paraplegia, both from other causes. So reimplantation might not be needed in most cases. But why do they do it then? The answer has to address that reimplantation is a precaution, not a routine step. \n\nI remember that the artery of Adamkiewicz is critical. Sacrificing segments above it can lead to ischemia. The study mentions an average of 4.5 segmental pairs sacrificed between T7 and L1. Reimplantation is done to protect that artery. But the data shows that in most cases, the spinal cord is spared because the arteries can be managed without reimplantation. \n\nThe user's deeper need might be to justify the time spent on reimplantation in their practice. They might be looking for evidence to support or challenge the standard procedure. The study's results suggest that reimplantation isn't always necessary because the monitoring shows stability. But it's still done as a safety measure. \n\nAlso, the two cases of paraplegia were due to dissections or respiratory issues, not the reimplantation itself. That's important. So the procedure isn't causing the complications; other factors are. The user might be concerned that reimplantation is adding unnecessary steps, but the study shows it's effective in preventing complications when done.\n\nI should check if the study's methods are relevant. They\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_08", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Does the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia exist?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The placement of the superficial cervical plexus block has been the subject of controversy. Although the investing cervical fascia has been considered as an impenetrable barrier, clinically, the placement of the block deep or superficial to the fascia provides the same effective anesthesia. The underlying mechanism is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the three-dimensional organization of connective tissues in the anterior region of the neck.\nMETHODS: Using a combination of dissection, E12 sheet plastination, and confocal microscopy, fascial structures in the anterior cervical triangle were examined in 10 adult human cadavers.\nRESULTS: In the upper cervical region, the fascia of strap muscles in the middle and the fasciae of the submandibular glands on both sides formed a dumbbell-like fascia sheet that had free lateral margins and did not continue with the sternocleidomastoid fascia. In the lower cervical region, no single connective tissue sheet extended directly between the sternocleidomastoid muscles. The fascial structure deep to platysma in the anterior cervical triangle comprised the strap fascia.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia exists. Let me start by recalling the standard anatomy of the cervical fascia. I remember that there are four layers: superficial, pretracheal, deep, and investing. The investing layer is the outermost one, surrounding the neck muscles.\n\nHmm, the context provided talks about a study on the superficial cervical plexus block. The study mentions that the investing fascia was thought to be an impenetrable barrier, but they found that blocks placed deep or superficial to it still worked. The methods involved dissection and imaging in cadavers. The results say that in the upper cervical region, there's a dumbbell-shaped fascia from strap muscles and submandibular glands without connecting to the sternocleidomastoid fascia. In the lower region, no single sheet connects the sternocleidomastoid muscles. The deep fascia under platysma is the strap fascia.\n\nWait, the key point here is that the study is challenging the traditional view. The investing layer is usually described as the deepest layer that surrounds the neck structures. But the study found that in the anterior triangle, there's no continuous investing fascia. Instead, the deep fascia there is the strap fascia. The study says the investing fascia doesn't form a continuous sheet in the anterior region. \n\nI should check if the investing layer is considered to exist elsewhere. The standard anatomy has the investing layer as the outermost, but in the anterior neck, it might not be continuous. The study's results indicate that in the upper cervical region, the fascia doesn't connect to the sternocleidomastoid fascia, meaning there's no single investing layer there. The deep fascia under platysma is strap fascia, which is part of the deep layer but not the investing layer.\n\nThe user might be a medical student or a professional in anesthesiology, given the context about nerve blocks. They probably encountered conflicting information and want clarity. Their deeper need is understanding the anatomical variations to apply it in clinical practice, especially for nerve blocks. They might be confused because some sources say investing fascia is a barrier, but the study shows it's not continuous.\n\nI recall that the investing fascia (deep layer) is continuous with the deep cervical fascia, but in the anterior triangle, it's interrupted. The study's finding that there's no single sheet extending between sternocleidomastoid muscles\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_09", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Can Ambu self-inflating bag and Neopuff infant resuscitator provide adequate and safe manual inflations for infants up to 10 kg weight?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: Manual resuscitation devices for infants and newborns must be able to provide adequate ventilation in a safe and consistent manner across a wide range of patient sizes (0.5-10 kg) and differing clinical states. There are little comparative data assessing biomechanical performance of common infant manual resuscitation devices across the manufacturers' recommended operating weight ranges. We aimed to compare performance of the Ambu self-inflating bag (SIB) with the Neopuff T-piece resuscitator in three resuscitation models.\nMETHODS: Five experienced clinicians delivered targeted ventilation to three lung models differing in compliance, delivery pressures and inflation rates; Preterm (0.5 mL/cmH2O, 25/5 cmH2O, 60 per minute), Term (3 mL/cmH2O, 30/5 cmH2O, 40 per minute) and Infant (9 mL/cmH2O, 35/5 cmH2O, 30 per minute). The Neopuff was examined with three gas inflow rates (5 litres per minute (LPM), 10 LPM and 15 LPM) and the Ambu with no gas inflow.\nRESULTS: 3309 inflations were collected and analysed with analysis of variance for repeated measures. The Neopuff was unable to reach set peak inflation pressures and exhibited seriously elevated positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) with all inflow gas rates (p<0.001) in this infant model. The Ambu SIB accurately delivered targeted pressures in all three models.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if Ambu self-inflating bags and Neopuff infant resuscitators can safely and adequately manually inflate infants up to 10 kg. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study compared these two devices in three different lung models: preterm, term, and infant. \n\nFirst, I need to check the key findings from the study. The Neopuff had issues with not reaching the set peak pressures and high PEEP across all gas inflow rates. That's a problem because high PEEP can cause lung damage, especially in infants. The Ambu SIB, on the other hand, delivered the targeted pressures accurately in all models. \n\nThe user mentioned infants up to 10 kg. The study's models were for 0.5 to 10 kg, so that's relevant. The preterm model was 0.5 mL/cmH2O, which is for very low birth weight, term is 3 mL/cmH2O, and infant is 9 mL/cmH2O. These correspond to different weight ranges. The study tested up to 10 kg, so the data covers the user's query.\n\nWait, the user might be a healthcare professional, maybe a nurse or a doctor in a setting where they use these devices. They could be concerned about choosing the right device for infants, especially in emergencies. Their real need might be ensuring they're not causing harm with the wrong device. They might have heard conflicting info about Neopuff being good for infants but the study shows issues.\n\nThe study found Neopuff couldn't reach peak pressures and had high PEEP. That's critical because in infants, high PEEP can lead to barotrauma or volutrauma. The Ambu worked fine. But the user asked about \"manual inflations.\" The study used experienced clinicians, so it's about skilled use. The Neopuff requires gas flow, which might not be reliable if the clinician isn't careful. \n\nAlso, the context says Neopuff is a T-piece resuscitator. Some people might confuse it with other devices. The study tested it with 5, 10, 15 LPM, but all had issues. The Ambu didn't need gas inflow, so it's simpler. \n\nI should consider if there are any caveats. The study used simulated lung models, not real infants. Real infants have variability, but the study covers the range up to 1\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_10", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Parasacral sciatic nerve block: does the elicited motor response predict the success rate?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the tibial and the peroneal evoked motor response with regard to efficacy of sciatic nerve block using the parasacral approach.\nMETHODS: Twenty-six ASA I-III patients scheduled for elective lower limb surgery were randomized to receive a parasacral sciatic block, using a nerve stimulator technique seeking either a tibial (n = 14) or peroneal (n = 12) motor response. After the evoked motor response was obtained, a solution of 10 mL 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine (actual final concentration of epinephrine, 1/160,000) was slowly injected through the needle. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed every 5 min for 30 min by an anesthesiologist blinded to the elicited motor response. If the block was not complete 30 min after injection of the local anesthetics, it was considered as failed, and general anesthesia was supplemented.\nRESULTS: Time to perform the block and level of minimal and maximal stimulation were not different between groups. The success rate of complete block was significantly higher in the tibial compared to the peroneal group (11 of 14 vs 2 of 12; P = 0.002).\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether the elicited motor response in a parasacral sciatic nerve block predicts the success rate. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a specific study comparing tibial versus peroneal motor responses in parasacral sciatic blocks.\n\nFirst, I need to understand the study details. The study had 26 patients randomized into two groups: tibial (n=14) and peroneal (n=12). They used nerve stimulation to elicit a motor response before injecting local anesthetics. The success was defined as a complete block at 30 minutes. The results showed a higher success rate in the tibial group (11/14) compared to peroneal (2/12), with a p-value of 0.002. \n\nHmm, the key point here is that the tibial response group had a higher success rate. But the user is asking if the elicited motor response itself predicts success. The study directly compares the two responses, so the answer should be yes, based on this data. But I should check if there's more nuance.\n\nWait, the study says the success rate was significantly higher in the tibial group. That implies that eliciting the tibial response correlates with better outcomes. But does that mean the response predicts success? The study's design is a bit specific. They were testing whether using tibial vs. peroneal stimulation leads to different success rates. So, the result suggests that targeting the tibial nerve (via the motor response) is more predictive of a successful block than peroneal.\n\nI should also consider the methodology. They used a nerve stimulator to get the motor response before injection. The success was assessed after 30 minutes. The study found that when they elicited the tibial response, more patients achieved a complete block. So, in this context, yes, the elicited motor response (tibial) predicted higher success.\n\nBut is there a caveat? The user might be a medical professional, maybe an anesthesiologist or a student. They probably want to know if they can use the motor response as a reliable predictor in practice. The study shows a statistically significant difference, but the peroneal group had a low success rate (2 out of 12). That's important because it suggests that peroneal stimulation might not be as reliable. \n\nAlso, the study is prospective and randomized\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_11", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Does solid culture for tuberculosis influence clinical decision making in India?\n\nContext:\nSETTING: Medical units at an academic tertiary referral hospital in Southern India.\nOBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of solid culture on Löwenstein-Jensen medium on clinical decision making.\nDESIGN: In a retrospective review of 150 culture-positive and 150 culture-negative consecutively sampled tuberculosis (TB) suspects, treatment decisions were analysed at presentation, after the availability of culture detection results and after the availability of drug susceptibility testing (DST) culture results.\nRESULTS: A total of 124 (82.7%) culture-positive patients and 35 (23.3%) culture-negative patients started anti-tuberculosis treatment prior to receiving their culture results; 101 patients (33.7%) returned for their results; two (1.3%) initiated treatment based on positive culture and no culture-negative patients discontinued treatment. DST was performed on 119 (79.3%) positive cultures: 30 (25.2%) showed any resistance, eight (6.7%) showed multidrug resistance and one (0.84%) showed extensively drug-resistant TB. Twenty-eight patients (23.5%) returned for their DST results. Based on DST, treatment was modified in four patients (3.4%).\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether solid culture for tuberculosis influences clinical decision making in India, specifically in the context of a study done at an academic tertiary hospital in Southern India. Let me go through the provided context carefully.\n\nFirst, I need to recall what solid culture means in TB diagnostics. Solid culture here refers to Löwenstein-Jensen (LJ) medium, which is a standard solid culture medium used for TB detection. The study is looking at how this culture impacts clinical decisions—like when treatment starts, whether patients stop treatment, and how drug susceptibility testing (DST) results affect decisions.\n\nLooking at the results: 82.7% of culture-positive patients (124 out of 150) started treatment before getting their culture results. That's a significant number. Only 1.3% (2 patients) started treatment based on positive culture results. The culture-negative group had 23.3% starting treatment before results, which is lower than the positive group. \n\nHmm, the key point here is that most patients started treatment before culture results were available. The study mentions that 101 patients (33.7%) returned for results, meaning they didn't start treatment immediately. But the fact that 82.7% started treatment prior to culture results suggests that solid culture results aren't influencing the initial treatment decisions much. In fact, the data shows that treatment initiation is happening before culture is available, so the culture results themselves aren't changing the decision to start treatment.\n\nThen there's the DST part. They did DST on 79.3% of positive cultures. Out of those, 25.2% showed resistance, 6.7% MDR, and 0.84% XDR. But only 23.5% returned for DST results, and treatment was modified in just 4 patients (3.4%). That's a very small percentage. So even when DST results are available, they don't lead to many changes in treatment. \n\nThe study's objective was to see if solid culture (LJ) influences clinical decisions. But the results indicate that patients are starting treatment before culture results come in, so the culture results aren't affecting the initial decision. The DST results also don't cause many treatment modifications. \n\nI should consider why this might be. In India, TB treatment guidelines often recommend starting treatment immediately based on clinical suspicion, especially in resource-limited settings where culture takes time. So the high rate of treatment initiation\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_12", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Residual fundus or neofundus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: is fundectomy safe and effective as revision surgery?\n\nContext:\nINTRODUCTION: Up to 30 % of patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy require revision surgery for inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and/or the development of severe upper gastrointestinal symptoms. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic fundectomy (LF) in cases of a residual fundus/neofundus development regarding GERD symptoms.\nMETHODS: The study group comprised 19 patients (17 female; mean BMI 35.4 kg/m(2)) divided into 2 groups. Group A (n = 10) patients with severe GERD and evidence of residual fundus/neofundus, Hiatal hernia with good results in terms of weight loss. Group B (n = 9) patients with severe GERD, a residual fundus/neofundus, inadequate weight loss or weight regain. Fundectomy was indicated when a residual fundus/neofundus was associated with severe GERD symptoms. The presence of a residual fundus/neofundus was assessed by a barium swallow and/or multislice computed tomography.\nRESULTS: No mortality or intra-operative complications occurred. Five postoperative complications occurred: 2 cases of bleeding, 1 mid-gastric stenosis and 2 leaks (10.5 %). All patients experienced improvements in their GERD symptoms and stopped PPI treatment. Group B exhibited an additional %EWL of 53.4 % at 24 months.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking about residual fundus or neofundus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and whether fundectomy is safe and effective as revision surgery. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a retrospective study with 19 patients divided into two groups: Group A (10 patients) with severe GERD and residual fundus/neofundus, and Group B (9 patients) with similar issues but also inadequate weight loss or regain. The study found no mortality or intra-op complications, five post-op complications (10.5%), and all patients improved GERD symptoms and stopped PPIs. Group B had an additional 53.4% weight loss at 24 months.\n\nFirst, I need to verify the key points from the study. The main question is about safety and efficacy of fundectomy for this specific issue. The study shows no deaths or major intra-op complications, which is good. The post-op complications were minor: bleeding, stenosis, leaks. The fact that all patients improved GERD symptoms is crucial because that's the primary indication—severe GERD due to residual fundus. Also, Group B's additional weight loss suggests fundectomy might help with weight loss too, not just GERD.\n\nWait, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a gastroenterologist, considering revision surgery options. They probably want to know if fundectomy is a viable option for their patients who have persistent GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. The deeper need here could be understanding if they should perform fundectomy without risking complications, especially since some patients might have had weight regain or inadequate loss.\n\nI should check if the study's findings are robust. It's a retrospective study, so limitations like selection bias and small sample size (n=19) are important. The authors mention barium swallow and CT for assessing residual fundus, which is standard. But they didn't have a control group, so it's hard to isolate fundectomy's effect from other factors. Also, Group B had weight issues, so the weight loss improvement might be due to the fundectomy itself or other factors like continued diet adherence.\n\nThe user might also be concerned about the safety profile. The complications were low (10.5%), but leaks and stenosis are serious. They need to know if the risks are acceptable compared to other revisions like redo sleeve or gastric bypass. The study says all patients stopped PPIs, which is a big plus for GER\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_13", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Are behavioural risk factors to be blamed for the conversion from optimal blood pressure to hypertensive status in Black South Africans?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: Longitudinal cohort studies in sub-Saharan Africa are urgently needed to understand cardiovascular disease development. We, therefore, explored health behaviours and conventional risk factors of African individuals with optimal blood pressure (BP) (≤ 120/80 mm Hg), and their 5-year prediction for the development of hypertension.\nMETHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study in the North West Province, South Africa, started in 2005 and included African volunteers (n = 1994; aged>30 years) from a sample of 6000 randomly selected households in rural and urban areas.\nRESULTS: At baseline, 48% of the participants were hypertensive (≥ 140/90 mmHg). Those with optimal BP (n = 478) were followed at a success rate of 70% for 5 years (213 normotensive, 68 hypertensive, 57 deceased). Africans that became hypertensive smoked more than the normotensive individuals (68.2% vs 49.8%), and they also had a greater waist circumference [ratio of geometric means of 0.94 cm (95% CI: 0.86-0.99)] and greater amount of γ-glutamyltransferase [0.74 U/l (95% CI: 0.62-0.88)]at baseline. The 5-year change in BP was independently explained by baseline γ-glutamyltransferase [R(2) = 0.23, β = 0.13 U/l (95% CI: 0.01-0.19)]. Alcohol intake also predicted central systolic BP and carotid cross-sectional wall area (CSWA) at follow-up. Waist circumference was another predictor of BP changes [β = 0.18 cm (95% CI: 0.05-0.24)]and CSWA. HIV infection was inversely associated with increased BP.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking whether behavioral risk factors are to be blamed for the conversion from optimal blood pressure to hypertensive status in Black South Africans. Let me start by understanding the context provided. The study is from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study in South Africa. They looked at Black South Africans with optimal BP (≤120/80 mmHg) and followed them for five years to see who developed hypertension.\n\nFirst, I need to recall the key findings from the results section. The study found that those who became hypertensive had higher smoking rates (68.2% vs 49.8%), larger waist circumference (geometric mean ratio 0.94), and higher γ-glutamyltransferase (0.74 U/l). Also, alcohol intake predicted central systolic BP and carotid wall area. Waist circumference was a predictor for BP changes. HIV infection was inversely associated with increased BP, which is interesting but maybe not directly relevant here.\n\nThe user's question is about behavioral risk factors being \"blamed.\" That's a bit strong. Blaming implies responsibility, but in public health, we usually talk about modifiable risks without assigning blame. I should be careful not to use judgmental language. The study shows associations, not causation. So, I need to clarify that correlation isn't causation.\n\nLooking at the behavioral factors mentioned: smoking, alcohol, physical activity (though not explicitly stated here), diet. The study highlights smoking, waist circumference (which relates to obesity, a behavioral factor like diet and physical inactivity), and alcohol. γ-glutamyltransferase is a liver enzyme, often linked to alcohol consumption and liver disease, so that's a marker for alcohol-related damage. \n\nThe key point is that the study identified these as predictors. For example, baseline smoking was higher in those who developed hypertension. Similarly, waist circumference and γ-glutamyltransferase were independent predictors. But the question is whether these behavioral factors are \"to be blamed.\" The answer should emphasize that while these factors are significant predictors, they're not the sole cause. There are other factors like genetics, socioeconomic conditions, healthcare access, which might play roles too.\n\nAlso, the study is from South Africa, specifically Black South Africans. The context mentions the population is African, so cultural and socioeconomic factors specific to this group should be considered. For instance, in some communities, high salt intake due to dietary habits or limited access to fresh food might contribute.\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_14", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Prognosis of low-tone sudden deafness - does it inevitably progress to Meniere's disease?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVES: To investigate whether low-tone SD was a precursor of Meniere's disease and whether patients with low-tone SD suffered from endolymphatic hydrops.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective case review in the university hospital. A total of 184 patients with low-tone SD were divided into two groups with single and recurrent episodes. The progress, follow-up audiograms, and ECochG results of the patients were reviewed and compared with those of patients with high-tone SD and Meniere's disease.\nRESULTS: In all, 83 of 177 patients with low-tone SD unaccompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; 15 of the 83 developed vertiginous attacks. The remaining 94 patients had a single episode. Three of the seven patients with low-tone SD accompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; two of the three were subsequently confirmed to have Meniere's disease. The other four had a single episode. No difference in rate of progress from SD to Meniere's disease was observed among the low-tone and the high-tone SD groups. The average -SP/AP of each group with a single episode is smaller than that of other groups with recurrent episodes and Meniere's disease.\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking about the prognosis of low-tone sudden deafness (SD) and whether it inevitably progresses to Meniere's disease. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a study with 184 patients divided into groups with single and recurrent episodes of low-tone SD. The key points from the results are that out of 83 patients without vertigo who had recurrent hearing loss, 15 developed vertigo. Among the 7 with vertigo, 3 had recurrent hearing loss, and 2 of those were later diagnosed with Meniere's. The study also notes no difference in progression to Meniere's between low-tone and high-tone SD groups.\n\nHmm, the user might be a patient or a caregiver who's worried after being diagnosed with low-tone SD. They're probably concerned about developing Meniere's and what the future holds. Their main question is if it's inevitable, but they might also be anxious about the progression and whether they need specific treatments.\n\nI should check the study's findings carefully. The study shows that only 2 out of 3 patients with recurrent hearing loss and vertigo developed Meniere's. That's a small number, so it's not inevitable. Also, the study emphasizes that low-tone SD without vertigo (the majority) doesn't progress to Meniere's. The key point here is that Meniere's disease typically involves vertigo, tinnitus, hearing loss, and ear fullness, whereas low-tone SD is a sudden hearing loss without those symptoms initially.\n\nWait, the user might not realize that Meniere's is a specific condition with distinct symptoms. They might confuse sudden hearing loss with Meniere's progression. Clarifying the symptoms could help. Also, the study mentions that the average SP/AP ratio is smaller in single-episode cases, which might indicate less severe or different pathology.\n\nThe user's deeper need is likely reassurance. They want to know if their condition will get worse and if they should take action. The answer should stress that low-tone SD doesn't inevitably lead to Meniere's. Most cases are single episodes and don't progress. Only a minority with recurrent episodes and vertigo might develop Meniere's, but even then, it's not certain.\n\nI should also mention that the study didn't find a difference between low-tone and high-tone SD in progression to Meniere's. That's important because some might think low-tone is more dangerous. But the data shows otherwise. The recurrence rate is higher in low-tone SD, but\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_15", "prompt": "Problem:\nQuestion: Is unsafe sexual behaviour increasing among HIV-infected individuals?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The number of new diagnoses of HIV infection is rising in the northwestern hemisphere and it is becoming increasingly important to understand the mechanisms behind this trend.\nOBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether reported unsafe sexual behaviour among HIV- infected individuals is changing over time.\nDESIGN: Participants in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study were asked about their sexual practices every 6 months for 3 years during regular follow-up of the cohort beginning on 1 April 2000.\nMETHODS: : Logistic regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations assuming a constant correlation between responses from the same individual.\nRESULTS: At least one sexual behaviour questionnaire was obtained for 6545 HIV-infected individuals and the median number of questionnaires completed per individual was five. There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sex over time in this population [odds ratio (OR), 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-1.05]. Females (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.19-1.60), 15-30 year olds (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47), those with HIV-positive partners (OR, 12.58; 95% CI, 10.84-14.07) and those with occasional partners (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.87-3.67) were more likely to report unsafe sex. There was no evidence of a response bias over time, but individuals were less willing to leave questions about their sexual behaviour unanswered or ambiguous (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97).\n\nDraft reasoning:\nOkay, the user is asking if unsafe sexual behavior is increasing among HIV-infected individuals. Let me look at the context they provided. \n\nHmm, the study is from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, tracking people every six months for three years starting in 2000. They collected data on sexual practices. The main finding says there was no evidence of an increase in unsafe sex over time. The odds ratio is 1.0 with a confidence interval of 0.96 to 1.05. That's a bit tricky because the confidence interval includes 1, which means statistically, there's no significant change.\n\nWait, the user might be concerned about rising HIV cases in the northwestern hemisphere. The background mentions new diagnoses are rising there, but the study specifically looks at HIV-infected individuals, not the general population. So even if new infections are up, this study is about people already infected. That's an important distinction. The user might be conflating the two.\n\nAlso, the study found certain groups had higher rates of unsafe sex: females, younger people (15-30), those with HIV-positive partners, and those with occasional partners. But the key point is that over time, there wasn't an increase. The response bias part says people were less likely to leave questions unanswered, which might mean they're being more honest now, but the study adjusted for that.\n\nThe user's deeper need might be understanding if current HIV trends are due to more risky behavior among infected people. But the study shows no increase in unsafe sex among the infected cohort. Maybe they're worried about transmission rates increasing because of this? But the study doesn't address transmission—just self-reported unsafe behavior. \n\nI should clarify that the study doesn't show an increase in unsafe sex over time among those already infected. The rising new diagnoses in the region could be from other factors, like better testing or different populations. The user might need to know that while unsafe behavior isn't increasing in this group, other factors could be driving new infections. \n\nAlso, the confidence interval being close to 1 is important. Some might misinterpret the CI as \"no change,\" but technically, it's not statistically significant. The study says \"no evidence of an increase,\" so the answer is no. \n\nI should make sure not to confuse this with the general population. The question is specifically about HIV-infected individuals. The study's population is already infected, so their behavior trends are what matter here. \n\nThe user might be a student\n\nUse exactly 2 lines. Line 1: one short evidence-based sentence. Line 2: `Final answer: yes`, `Final answer: no`, or `Final answer: maybe`.\nDo not restate the problem. Keep the whole response short. Do not use <think> tags."}

runs/20260322T021329Z/iteration_01_pubmedqa_train_generation/pubmedqa_manual_review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,743 @@
+# Manual Review
+
+## pubmedqa_train_01
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary: do they have Lynch syndrome?
+
+Context:
+PURPOSE: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; HNPCC) is an autosomal-dominant cancer predisposition syndrome that increases risk for multiple cancers, including colon, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. Revised Bethesda Criteria recommend that patients with two HNPCC-associated cancers undergo molecular evaluation to determine whether they have a mismatch repair (MMR) defect associated with HNPCC. The purpose of our study was to determine the likelihood of MMR defects (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1) in women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer.
+PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2004, 102 women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers were identified; 59 patients had tumor blocks available for analysis. Patients were divided into risk groups based on family history: high (met Amsterdam criteria), medium (personal history or first-degree relative with an HNPCC-associated cancer), and low (all others). Protein expression for MSH2, MSH6, and MLH1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Microsatellite instability and MLH1 promoter methylation analyses were performed on a subset of cases.
+RESULTS: Median age was 50 years. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria for HNPCC. Five additional patients, all medium-risk, had molecular findings consistent with a germline mutation of either MSH2 or MLH1. None of the low-risk patients had molecular results consistent with a germline mutation.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking whether women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary have Lynch syndrome. Let me start by recalling what Lynch syndrome is. It's an autosomal-dominant disorder that increases the risk for colorectal, endometrial, and ovarian cancers, among others. The key here is that Lynch syndrome involves defects in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, like MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, or PMS2.
+
+The context provided is from a study. The study looked at 102 women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers between 1989 and 2004. They had 59 with tumor blocks available. They divided patients into risk groups based on family history: high (Amsterdam criteria), medium (personal or family history of HNPCC cancers), and low (others). They checked protein expression via immunohistochemistry for MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and also did microsatellite instability and MLH1 methylation tests on some.
+
+The results say that median age was 50. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria (which is a high-risk family history), but that's only two out of 59. Then five additional medium-risk patients had molecular findings consistent with germline mutations in MSH2 or MLH1. None of the low-risk patients had such mutations. So, overall, out of the 59, 7 had some molecular evidence of Lynch (2 high-risk plus 5 medium-risk). But the question is about the likelihood in general.
+
+Wait, the user might be a medical student or a healthcare professional trying to understand if these patients should be tested for Lynch. They might be dealing with a patient who has both cancers and want to know the next steps. The study shows that only a small percentage (7 out of 59) had Lynch-related mutations. But the study's sample is from 1989-2004, which might be outdated. Also, the criteria for Lynch have evolved since then.
+
+I should check the key points from the study. The revised Bethesda criteria mention that if someone has two HNPCC-associated cancers, they should get molecular testing. Here, synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers are both HNPCC-associated. So the study is relevant. The findings show that among the patients, only 7% (roughly) had Lynch mutations. But the two high-risk patients were already identified by
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+Women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer have a small but significant likelihood of Lynch syndrome, particularly with a family history of HNPCC-associated cancers.  
+Final answer: maybe
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+Women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer have a small but significant likelihood of Lynch syndrome, particularly with a family history of HNPCC-associated cancers.  
+Final answer: maybe
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: maybe
+- Parsed answer: maybe
+
+## pubmedqa_train_02
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Is the Retromandibular Transparotid Approach a Reliable Option for the Surgical Treatment of Condylar Fractures?
+
+Context:
+PURPOSE: This study evaluated the outcomes and complications of the surgical treatment of condylar fractures by the retromandibular transparotid approach. The authors hypothesized that such an approach would be safe and reliable for the treatment of most condylar fractures.
+MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients who underwent surgical reduction of a condylar fracture from January 2012 to December 2014 at the Clinic of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Hospital of Verona (Verona, Italy) was performed. Inclusion criteria were having undergone surgical treatment of condylar fractures with a retromandibular transparotid approach and the availability of computed tomograms of the preoperative and postoperative facial skeleton with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Static and dynamic occlusal function, temporomandibular joint health status, presence of neurologic impairments, and esthetic outcomes were evaluated in all patients.
+RESULTS: The sample was composed of 25 patients. Preinjury occlusion and temporomandibular joint health were restored in most patients. Esthetic outcomes were deemed satisfactory by clinicians and patients. Neither permanent neurologic impairments nor major postoperative complications were observed.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking whether the Retromandibular Transparotid Approach is a reliable option for treating condylar fractures. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study they mentioned is a retrospective analysis from Verona University Hospital between 2012 and 2014. They looked at 25 patients who had this specific surgical approach.
+
+First, I need to break down what the study says. The purpose was to check if this approach is safe and reliable. They compared pre-op and post-op CT scans, evaluated occlusion, TMJ health, neurologic issues, and aesthetics. The results show that most patients had restored occlusion and TMJ health. No permanent neurologic damage or major complications were reported. Aesthetics were good too.
+
+Hmm, the user might be a medical student, a surgeon, or a patient. If they're a student or surgeon, they probably want to know if this approach is worth learning or using. If it's a patient, they might be worried about risks. But the question is phrased technically, so likely a professional. They need evidence-based info for clinical decisions.
+
+Wait, the study has limitations. It's retrospective with only 25 patients. Small sample size means results might not be generalizable. Also, no control group—how do they know it's better than other approaches? The authors assumed it's safe, but without comparison, it's hard to say. They mention it's reliable for "most" fractures, but the study doesn't specify what "most" means. 
+
+I should check if there are other studies. The context doesn't mention others, so I'll stick to this one. The key points: no major complications, good outcomes. But reliability? The term is tricky. In surgery, reliability implies consistency and low failure rates. Here, the approach worked for 25 cases without issues, but without a larger sample, it's not definitive. Also, condylar fractures vary—complex ones might not be covered. The study says "most," so maybe they excluded severe cases?
+
+The user might be concerned about alternatives. Like, is this approach better than others? The study doesn't compare it to other methods, so I can't say. But the authors hypothesized it's safe and reliable, and the results support that in their sample. 
+
+Also, the approach name: retromandibular transparotid. I remember that transparotid means through the parotid tissue
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+In this retrospective study of 25 patients, the retromandibular transparotid approach achieved successful surgical reduction with restored occlusion, TMJ function, and satisfactory aesthetics, without major complications or permanent neurologic deficits.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+In this retrospective study of 25 patients, the retromandibular transparotid approach achieved successful surgical reduction with restored occlusion, TMJ function, and satisfactory aesthetics, without major complications or permanent neurologic deficits.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: yes
+- Parsed answer: yes
+
+## pubmedqa_train_03
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Is patient outcome compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy?
+
+Context:
+OBJECTIVE: • Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) remains controversial in terms of oncologic outcomes, especially during the initial experience. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of initial experience of robotic cystectomy programs on oncologic outcomes and overall survival.
+PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Utilizing a prospectively maintained, single institution robotic cystectomy database, we identified 164 consecutive patients who underwent RARC since November 2005. • After stratification by age group, gender, pathologic T stage, lymph node status, surgical margin status, and sequential case number; we used chi-squared analyses to correlate sequential case number to operative time, surgical blood loss, lymph node yield, and surgical margin status. • We also addressed the relationship between complications and sequential case number. We then utilized Cox proportional hazard modeling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to correlate variables to overall mortality.
+RESULTS: • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with increased incidence of complications, surgical blood loss, or positive surgical margins (P= 0.780, P= 0.548, P= 0.545). Case number was, however, significantly associated with shorter operative time and mean number of lymph nodes retrieved (P<0.001, P<0.001). • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with survival; however, tumour stage, the presence of lymph node metastases, and positive surgical margins were significantly associated with death. • Although being the largest of its kind, this was a small study with short follow-up when compared to open cystectomy series.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking whether patient outcomes are compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. The study they mentioned looked at 164 patients who had RARC from 2005 onwards. They stratified patients by age, gender, pathologic stage, lymph node status, surgical margins, and sequential case number.
+
+Hmm, the key point here is the impact of being an early case in the program. The results showed that sequential case number wasn't significantly linked to complications, blood loss, or positive margins. That's important because those are common concerns about initial experiences. But they did find that as case numbers increased, operative time decreased and lymph node yield went up. So technically, the surgeons got better at the procedure over time.
+
+Wait, the user might be a medical professional or a student researching this topic. They probably want to know if starting with robot-assisted cystectomy is risky for patients. The study's conclusion says that initial cases don't have worse outcomes in terms of complications or mortality. But the study is small and has short follow-up, which is a limitation. 
+
+I should check the survival part. The results mention that tumor stage, lymph node metastases, and positive margins were significant for mortality, not the case number. So even in early cases, if the cancer is advanced or margins are positive, outcomes are worse. But the initial experience itself doesn't seem to hurt outcomes. 
+
+The user might be worried about adopting new tech. They might be a surgeon considering starting a robot program and want reassurance. The study shows that initial cases aren't worse, but the learning curve affects efficiency—shorter surgery time and more lymph nodes. That's a plus for accuracy, maybe reducing complications indirectly. 
+
+Also, the study is from a single institution, so it's not a broad comparison. But since it's the first study of its kind, it's a solid starting point. The user might need to know that while outcomes aren't worse initially, the learning curve means they should have experienced surgeons to handle early cases. 
+
+I should emphasize that the main takeaway is no increased complications or mortality in early cases. The compromise isn't there, but efficiency improves with experience. The user's deeper need might be whether to invest in robot-assisted surgery early on without fearing worse outcomes for patients. The answer here is yes, initial outcomes are comparable, but ongoing learning is beneficial for better results over time.
+</think>
+
+Based **solely on
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+Sequential case number was not significantly associated with complications, blood loss, or mortality in robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Final answer: no
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+Sequential case number was not significantly associated with complications, blood loss, or mortality in robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Final answer: no
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: True
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: no
+- Parsed answer: no
+
+## pubmedqa_train_04
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Are sports medicine journals relevant and applicable to practitioners and athletes?
+
+Context:
+OBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence base of sports medicine research and assess how relevant and applicable it is to everyday practice.
+METHODS: Original research articles, short reports, and case reports published in four major sport and exercise medicine journals were studied and classified according to the main topic of study and type of subjects used.
+RESULTS: The most common topic was sports science, and very few studies related to the treatment of injuries and medical conditions. The majority of published articles used healthy subjects sampled from the sedentary population, and few studies have been carried out on injured participants.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking if sports medicine journals are relevant and applicable to practitioners and athletes. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. The context mentions a study that looked at four major sports medicine journals. The key findings were that the most common topic was sports science, with few studies on injury treatment. Also, most articles used healthy sedentary subjects, not injured athletes.
+
+Hmm, the user is probably a practitioner—maybe a physical therapist, sports medic, coach, or an athlete themselves. They want to know if the journals they read will help them in real life. But deeper, they might be worried that the research they're reading isn't practical. Like, if they're treating an injury, do they need to read these journals? Or maybe they're a student trying to understand if this field is worth their time.
+
+The context says that only a few studies focus on treatment. That's a big point. Practitioners need injury management info, but if the journals are mostly about sports science (like performance metrics, physiology), that might not directly help with treating injuries. Also, the subjects are often healthy people, not injured athletes. So the research might not apply to someone with a sprained ankle or something.
+
+Wait, the user might be concerned about time. They have busy schedules and don't want to read irrelevant stuff. They need quick, actionable info. The context shows that the evidence base is skewed towards healthy populations, which means the journals might not address real-world injuries. That's a problem for practitioners dealing with actual patients.
+
+Another angle: athletes might think the journals have the latest training methods. But if the studies are on sedentary people, the findings might not translate. For example, a study on muscle strength in non-athletes might not apply to a soccer player recovering from a knee injury. So applicability is low here.
+
+I should also consider the "relevant" part. The context says sports science is common. For athletes, that could be relevant for performance, but if they're dealing with injuries, maybe not. Practitioners might need more clinical studies. The study found few injury treatment studies, so the journals might not be sufficient for that.
+
+The user's deeper need might be about efficiency. They want to know if they should spend time reading these journals or if there's better sources. Maybe they've noticed that the research doesn't help them in practice and are frustrated. They might be looking for validation that it's okay to focus elsewhere, like clinical guidelines or specific injury protocols.
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+The majority of studies in sports medicine journals focus on sports science in healthy populations, with few addressing injury treatment or clinical applications.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+The majority of studies in sports medicine journals focus on sports science in healthy populations, with few addressing injury treatment or clinical applications.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: no
+- Parsed answer: no
+
+## pubmedqa_train_05
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Is etoricoxib effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty?
+
+Context:
+PURPOSE: Heterotopic ossification is a common complication after total hip arthroplasty. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to prevent heterotopic ossifications effectively, however gastrointestinal complaints are reported frequently. In this study, we investigated whether etoricoxib, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor that produces fewer gastrointestinal side effects, is an effective alternative for the prevention of heterotopic ossification.
+METHODS: We investigated the effectiveness of oral etoricoxib 90 mg for seven days in a prospective two-stage study design for phase-2 clinical trials in a small sample of patients (n = 42). A cemented primary total hip arthroplasty was implanted for osteoarthritis. Six months after surgery, heterotopic ossification was determined on anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using the Brooker classification.
+RESULTS: No heterotopic ossification was found in 62 % of the patients that took etoricoxib; 31 % of the patients had Brooker grade 1 and 7 % Brooker grade 2 ossification.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking if etoricoxib is effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty. Let me look at the context they provided.
+
+First, the study they mentioned is a phase-2 trial with 42 patients. The purpose was to see if etoricoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor with fewer GI side effects, works better than regular NSAIDs for preventing heterotopic ossification (HO). The key here is that they compared it to what's already known—NSAIDs are effective but cause GI issues. 
+
+The results say 62% of patients taking etoricoxib had no HO. That's a pretty good rate. But wait, the study is small (n=42) and phase-2, so it's not a large-scale trial. The Brooker classification shows 31% grade 1 and 7% grade 2 ossification. The control group isn't mentioned here, which is a bit odd. In phase-2 trials, they usually have a control group. The context says it's a two-stage study, but the results only report the etoricoxib group. Hmm, maybe the comparison is implied? Or perhaps the study didn't have a control group? The user's context doesn't specify the control group's outcomes. That's a limitation.
+
+The user might be a medical professional, like an orthopedic surgeon or a patient. If they're a surgeon, they care about efficacy and safety. The study shows etoricoxib reduced HO compared to what? Without a control group, it's hard to say. But the context says "we investigated whether etoricoxib... is an effective alternative," so maybe the study was designed to compare it against standard care? Wait, the context mentions NSAIDs are known to prevent HO, so etoricoxib is being tested as a better alternative. But the results only give the etoricoxib group's data. 
+
+I recall that in some studies, they might use a historical control or a placebo group. Here, it's a two-stage study. The results say 62% no HO, but without knowing the baseline rate, it's tricky. For example, if the standard is 40% no HO, then 62% is better. But the context doesn't provide that. 
+
+Also, the study duration is seven days of etoricoxib. HO prevention usually
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+Etoricoxib showed a high rate of heterotopic ossification prevention (62% no HO) in a small phase-2 trial, suggesting efficacy comparable to NSAIDs with fewer gastrointestinal side effects.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+Etoricoxib showed a high rate of heterotopic ossification prevention (62% no HO) in a small phase-2 trial, suggesting efficacy comparable to NSAIDs with fewer gastrointestinal side effects.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: yes
+- Parsed answer: yes
+
+## pubmedqa_train_06
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Is minimally invasive mitral valve repair with artificial chords reproducible and applicable in routine surgery?
+
+Context:
+OBJECTIVES: Traditional resectional techniques and chordal transfer are difficult to apply in video-assisted mitral valve repair. Using artificial chords appears easier in this setting. The purpose of this study was to review the effectiveness and reproducibility of neochordal repair as a routine approach to minimally invasive mitral repair, and to assess the stability of neochord implantation using the figure-of-eight suture without pledgets in this setting.
+METHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve repair from 2008 to 2013. The primary endpoints were recurrent mitral regurgitation and reoperation.
+RESULTS: A total of 426 consecutive patients were included during the study period, with a mean age of 55 ± 18 years. Neochords were used in all patients, and in association with leaflet resection in 47 patients. One patient was not repairable and underwent valve replacement (repair rate, 99.8%). Fifteen patients had Grade I (3.5%) regurgitation, whereas the remainder had none. Patients were fast-tracked, with 25% extubated in the operation theatre and the remainder within 6 h. There were 5 deaths within 30 days (1.2%). Follow-up ranged 3-60 months, during which all of the patients remained with no or trace mitral regurgitation. No de-insertion or rupture of any neochords was found, and no patients required a reoperation.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking whether minimally invasive mitral valve repair with artificial chords is reproducible and applicable in routine surgery. Let me start by going through the context they provided. 
+
+First, the study is a retrospective review from 2008 to 2013 with 426 patients. The main points here are that they used artificial chords in all patients, with leaflet resection in 47 cases. The repair rate was 99.8%, which is really high. That's a good sign for reproducibility because almost all patients were successfully repaired without needing valve replacement.
+
+The outcomes show that 15 patients (3.5%) had Grade I regurgitation, which is mild. The rest had none. Also, no neochord de-insertion or rupture was reported. That's crucial because if the artificial chords were coming loose or breaking, that would be a problem. Plus, no reoperations were needed. That suggests the technique is stable and reliable.
+
+The study mentions that patients were fast-tracked, with 25% extubated in the operating room and others within 6 hours. That's a quick recovery time, which is a plus for routine use. The 30-day mortality was 1.2%, which is low, especially considering the patient age (mean 55 ± 18 years). 
+
+Hmm, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a cardiac resident, looking to implement this technique. They probably want to know if this method is something they can rely on day-to-day without too many complications. The key here is reproducibility—can different surgeons do this consistently? The study shows high success rates and no failures, but it's a retrospective study. That means they didn't have a control group or multiple surgeons doing the same technique. Still, the large sample size (426 patients) adds weight to the findings.
+
+Also, the technique uses figure-of-eight sutures without pledgets. The context says they assessed stability without pledgets, which is interesting because pledgets can cause tissue damage. Using non-pledget sutures might reduce complications, which is good for routine use. 
+
+Wait, the user might be concerned about the learning curve. The study doesn't mention training or how many surgeons were involved. But since it's a retrospective review, it's possible that the same team did all the procedures, which could affect reproducibility across different surgeons. However, the high repair rate and
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+Neochordal repair with figure-of-eight sutures without pledgets achieved 99.8% repair rate and no neochord de-insertion or reoperation in 426 patients.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+Neochordal repair with figure-of-eight sutures without pledgets achieved 99.8% repair rate and no neochord de-insertion or reoperation in 426 patients.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: yes
+- Parsed answer: yes
+
+## pubmedqa_train_07
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair: is reimplantation of spinal cord arteries a waste of time?
+
+Context:
+BACKGROUND: The impact of different strategies for management of intercostal and lumbar arteries during repair of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAA/A) on the prevention of paraplegia remains poorly understood.
+METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEP) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) during TAA/A repair involving serial segmental artery sacrifice (October 2002 to December 2004) were reviewed.
+RESULTS: Operative mortality was 6%. The median intensive care unit stay was 2.5 days (IQ range: 1-4 days), and the median hospital stay 10.0 days (IQ range: 8-17 days). Potentials remained unchanged during the course of serial segmental artery sacrifice, or could be returned to baseline levels by anesthetic and blood pressure manipulation, in 99 of 100 cases. An average of 8.0 +/- 2.6 segmental artery pairs were sacrificed overall, with an average of 4.5 +/- 2.1 segmental pairs sacrificed between T7 and L1, where the artery of Adamkiewicz is presumed to arise. Postoperative paraplegia occurred in 2 patients. In 1, immediate paraplegia was precipitated by an intraoperative dissection, resulting in 6 hours of lower body ischemia. A second ambulatory patient had severe paraparesis albeit normal cerebral function after resuscitation from a respiratory arrest.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking if reimplantation of spinal cord arteries is a waste of time during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study they mentioned had 100 patients with MEP and SSEP monitoring during TAA/A repairs. The key findings were that potentials stayed stable during segmental artery sacrifice in 99 out of 100 cases, and only 2 patients had paraplegia—both due to complications like dissection or respiratory arrest.
+
+Hmm, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a resident in vascular surgery. They're probably involved in these procedures and want to know if the time spent reimplanting arteries is necessary. Their main concern is likely the efficiency of the surgery versus the risk of complications. They might be worried about the time it takes and whether it's worth it given the low incidence of paraplegia.
+
+Wait, the study shows that in 99 cases, the potentials didn't change, meaning the spinal cord was probably protected. Only two patients had paraplegia, both from other causes. So reimplantation might not be needed in most cases. But why do they do it then? The answer has to address that reimplantation is a precaution, not a routine step. 
+
+I remember that the artery of Adamkiewicz is critical. Sacrificing segments above it can lead to ischemia. The study mentions an average of 4.5 segmental pairs sacrificed between T7 and L1. Reimplantation is done to protect that artery. But the data shows that in most cases, the spinal cord is spared because the arteries can be managed without reimplantation. 
+
+The user's deeper need might be to justify the time spent on reimplantation in their practice. They might be looking for evidence to support or challenge the standard procedure. The study's results suggest that reimplantation isn't always necessary because the monitoring shows stability. But it's still done as a safety measure. 
+
+Also, the two cases of paraplegia were due to dissections or respiratory issues, not the reimplantation itself. That's important. So the procedure isn't causing the complications; other factors are. The user might be concerned that reimplantation is adding unnecessary steps, but the study shows it's effective in preventing complications when done.
+
+I should check if the study's methods are relevant. They
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+In 99 of 100 cases, spinal cord function remained stable during segmental artery sacrifice, with paraplegia occurring due to unrelated complications.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+In 99 of 100 cases, spinal cord function remained stable during segmental artery sacrifice, with paraplegia occurring due to unrelated complications.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: yes
+- Parsed answer: no
+
+## pubmedqa_train_08
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Does the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia exist?
+
+Context:
+BACKGROUND: The placement of the superficial cervical plexus block has been the subject of controversy. Although the investing cervical fascia has been considered as an impenetrable barrier, clinically, the placement of the block deep or superficial to the fascia provides the same effective anesthesia. The underlying mechanism is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the three-dimensional organization of connective tissues in the anterior region of the neck.
+METHODS: Using a combination of dissection, E12 sheet plastination, and confocal microscopy, fascial structures in the anterior cervical triangle were examined in 10 adult human cadavers.
+RESULTS: In the upper cervical region, the fascia of strap muscles in the middle and the fasciae of the submandibular glands on both sides formed a dumbbell-like fascia sheet that had free lateral margins and did not continue with the sternocleidomastoid fascia. In the lower cervical region, no single connective tissue sheet extended directly between the sternocleidomastoid muscles. The fascial structure deep to platysma in the anterior cervical triangle comprised the strap fascia.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking if the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia exists. Let me start by recalling the standard anatomy of the cervical fascia. I remember that there are four layers: superficial, pretracheal, deep, and investing. The investing layer is the outermost one, surrounding the neck muscles.
+
+Hmm, the context provided talks about a study on the superficial cervical plexus block. The study mentions that the investing fascia was thought to be an impenetrable barrier, but they found that blocks placed deep or superficial to it still worked. The methods involved dissection and imaging in cadavers. The results say that in the upper cervical region, there's a dumbbell-shaped fascia from strap muscles and submandibular glands without connecting to the sternocleidomastoid fascia. In the lower region, no single sheet connects the sternocleidomastoid muscles. The deep fascia under platysma is the strap fascia.
+
+Wait, the key point here is that the study is challenging the traditional view. The investing layer is usually described as the deepest layer that surrounds the neck structures. But the study found that in the anterior triangle, there's no continuous investing fascia. Instead, the deep fascia there is the strap fascia. The study says the investing fascia doesn't form a continuous sheet in the anterior region. 
+
+I should check if the investing layer is considered to exist elsewhere. The standard anatomy has the investing layer as the outermost, but in the anterior neck, it might not be continuous. The study's results indicate that in the upper cervical region, the fascia doesn't connect to the sternocleidomastoid fascia, meaning there's no single investing layer there. The deep fascia under platysma is strap fascia, which is part of the deep layer but not the investing layer.
+
+The user might be a medical student or a professional in anesthesiology, given the context about nerve blocks. They probably encountered conflicting information and want clarity. Their deeper need is understanding the anatomical variations to apply it in clinical practice, especially for nerve blocks. They might be confused because some sources say investing fascia is a barrier, but the study shows it's not continuous.
+
+I recall that the investing fascia (deep layer) is continuous with the deep cervical fascia, but in the anterior triangle, it's interrupted. The study's finding that there's no single sheet extending between sternocleidomastoid muscles
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+The study found no continuous investing fascia sheet extending between the sternocleidomastoid muscles in the anterior cervical region.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+The study found no continuous investing fascia sheet extending between the sternocleidomastoid muscles in the anterior cervical region.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: no
+- Parsed answer: no
+
+## pubmedqa_train_09
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Can Ambu self-inflating bag and Neopuff infant resuscitator provide adequate and safe manual inflations for infants up to 10 kg weight?
+
+Context:
+BACKGROUND: Manual resuscitation devices for infants and newborns must be able to provide adequate ventilation in a safe and consistent manner across a wide range of patient sizes (0.5-10 kg) and differing clinical states. There are little comparative data assessing biomechanical performance of common infant manual resuscitation devices across the manufacturers' recommended operating weight ranges. We aimed to compare performance of the Ambu self-inflating bag (SIB) with the Neopuff T-piece resuscitator in three resuscitation models.
+METHODS: Five experienced clinicians delivered targeted ventilation to three lung models differing in compliance, delivery pressures and inflation rates; Preterm (0.5 mL/cmH2O, 25/5 cmH2O, 60 per minute), Term (3 mL/cmH2O, 30/5 cmH2O, 40 per minute) and Infant (9 mL/cmH2O, 35/5 cmH2O, 30 per minute). The Neopuff was examined with three gas inflow rates (5 litres per minute (LPM), 10 LPM and 15 LPM) and the Ambu with no gas inflow.
+RESULTS: 3309 inflations were collected and analysed with analysis of variance for repeated measures. The Neopuff was unable to reach set peak inflation pressures and exhibited seriously elevated positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) with all inflow gas rates (p<0.001) in this infant model. The Ambu SIB accurately delivered targeted pressures in all three models.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking if Ambu self-inflating bags and Neopuff infant resuscitators can safely and adequately manually inflate infants up to 10 kg. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study compared these two devices in three different lung models: preterm, term, and infant. 
+
+First, I need to check the key findings from the study. The Neopuff had issues with not reaching the set peak pressures and high PEEP across all gas inflow rates. That's a problem because high PEEP can cause lung damage, especially in infants. The Ambu SIB, on the other hand, delivered the targeted pressures accurately in all models. 
+
+The user mentioned infants up to 10 kg. The study's models were for 0.5 to 10 kg, so that's relevant. The preterm model was 0.5 mL/cmH2O, which is for very low birth weight, term is 3 mL/cmH2O, and infant is 9 mL/cmH2O. These correspond to different weight ranges. The study tested up to 10 kg, so the data covers the user's query.
+
+Wait, the user might be a healthcare professional, maybe a nurse or a doctor in a setting where they use these devices. They could be concerned about choosing the right device for infants, especially in emergencies. Their real need might be ensuring they're not causing harm with the wrong device. They might have heard conflicting info about Neopuff being good for infants but the study shows issues.
+
+The study found Neopuff couldn't reach peak pressures and had high PEEP. That's critical because in infants, high PEEP can lead to barotrauma or volutrauma. The Ambu worked fine. But the user asked about "manual inflations." The study used experienced clinicians, so it's about skilled use. The Neopuff requires gas flow, which might not be reliable if the clinician isn't careful. 
+
+Also, the context says Neopuff is a T-piece resuscitator. Some people might confuse it with other devices. The study tested it with 5, 10, 15 LPM, but all had issues. The Ambu didn't need gas inflow, so it's simpler. 
+
+I should consider if there are any caveats. The study used simulated lung models, not real infants. Real infants have variability, but the study covers the range up to 1
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+The Ambu self-inflating bag accurately delivered targeted pressures across all lung models, including those simulating infants up to 10 kg, while the Neopuff failed to reach set pressures and produced harmful elevated PEEP.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+The Ambu self-inflating bag accurately delivered targeted pressures across all lung models, including those simulating infants up to 10 kg, while the Neopuff failed to reach set pressures and produced harmful elevated PEEP.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: maybe
+- Parsed answer: yes
+
+## pubmedqa_train_10
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Parasacral sciatic nerve block: does the elicited motor response predict the success rate?
+
+Context:
+BACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the tibial and the peroneal evoked motor response with regard to efficacy of sciatic nerve block using the parasacral approach.
+METHODS: Twenty-six ASA I-III patients scheduled for elective lower limb surgery were randomized to receive a parasacral sciatic block, using a nerve stimulator technique seeking either a tibial (n = 14) or peroneal (n = 12) motor response. After the evoked motor response was obtained, a solution of 10 mL 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine (actual final concentration of epinephrine, 1/160,000) was slowly injected through the needle. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed every 5 min for 30 min by an anesthesiologist blinded to the elicited motor response. If the block was not complete 30 min after injection of the local anesthetics, it was considered as failed, and general anesthesia was supplemented.
+RESULTS: Time to perform the block and level of minimal and maximal stimulation were not different between groups. The success rate of complete block was significantly higher in the tibial compared to the peroneal group (11 of 14 vs 2 of 12; P = 0.002).
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking whether the elicited motor response in a parasacral sciatic nerve block predicts the success rate. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a specific study comparing tibial versus peroneal motor responses in parasacral sciatic blocks.
+
+First, I need to understand the study details. The study had 26 patients randomized into two groups: tibial (n=14) and peroneal (n=12). They used nerve stimulation to elicit a motor response before injecting local anesthetics. The success was defined as a complete block at 30 minutes. The results showed a higher success rate in the tibial group (11/14) compared to peroneal (2/12), with a p-value of 0.002. 
+
+Hmm, the key point here is that the tibial response group had a higher success rate. But the user is asking if the elicited motor response itself predicts success. The study directly compares the two responses, so the answer should be yes, based on this data. But I should check if there's more nuance.
+
+Wait, the study says the success rate was significantly higher in the tibial group. That implies that eliciting the tibial response correlates with better outcomes. But does that mean the response predicts success? The study's design is a bit specific. They were testing whether using tibial vs. peroneal stimulation leads to different success rates. So, the result suggests that targeting the tibial nerve (via the motor response) is more predictive of a successful block than peroneal.
+
+I should also consider the methodology. They used a nerve stimulator to get the motor response before injection. The success was assessed after 30 minutes. The study found that when they elicited the tibial response, more patients achieved a complete block. So, in this context, yes, the elicited motor response (tibial) predicted higher success.
+
+But is there a caveat? The user might be a medical professional, maybe an anesthesiologist or a student. They probably want to know if they can use the motor response as a reliable predictor in practice. The study shows a statistically significant difference, but the peroneal group had a low success rate (2 out of 12). That's important because it suggests that peroneal stimulation might not be as reliable. 
+
+Also, the study is prospective and randomized
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+Eliciting a tibial motor response is associated with a significantly higher success rate of complete sciatic nerve block compared to peroneal response.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+Eliciting a tibial motor response is associated with a significantly higher success rate of complete sciatic nerve block compared to peroneal response.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: maybe
+- Parsed answer: yes
+
+## pubmedqa_train_11
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Does solid culture for tuberculosis influence clinical decision making in India?
+
+Context:
+SETTING: Medical units at an academic tertiary referral hospital in Southern India.
+OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of solid culture on Löwenstein-Jensen medium on clinical decision making.
+DESIGN: In a retrospective review of 150 culture-positive and 150 culture-negative consecutively sampled tuberculosis (TB) suspects, treatment decisions were analysed at presentation, after the availability of culture detection results and after the availability of drug susceptibility testing (DST) culture results.
+RESULTS: A total of 124 (82.7%) culture-positive patients and 35 (23.3%) culture-negative patients started anti-tuberculosis treatment prior to receiving their culture results; 101 patients (33.7%) returned for their results; two (1.3%) initiated treatment based on positive culture and no culture-negative patients discontinued treatment. DST was performed on 119 (79.3%) positive cultures: 30 (25.2%) showed any resistance, eight (6.7%) showed multidrug resistance and one (0.84%) showed extensively drug-resistant TB. Twenty-eight patients (23.5%) returned for their DST results. Based on DST, treatment was modified in four patients (3.4%).
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking whether solid culture for tuberculosis influences clinical decision making in India, specifically in the context of a study done at an academic tertiary hospital in Southern India. Let me go through the provided context carefully.
+
+First, I need to recall what solid culture means in TB diagnostics. Solid culture here refers to Löwenstein-Jensen (LJ) medium, which is a standard solid culture medium used for TB detection. The study is looking at how this culture impacts clinical decisions—like when treatment starts, whether patients stop treatment, and how drug susceptibility testing (DST) results affect decisions.
+
+Looking at the results: 82.7% of culture-positive patients (124 out of 150) started treatment before getting their culture results. That's a significant number. Only 1.3% (2 patients) started treatment based on positive culture results. The culture-negative group had 23.3% starting treatment before results, which is lower than the positive group. 
+
+Hmm, the key point here is that most patients started treatment before culture results were available. The study mentions that 101 patients (33.7%) returned for results, meaning they didn't start treatment immediately. But the fact that 82.7% started treatment prior to culture results suggests that solid culture results aren't influencing the initial treatment decisions much. In fact, the data shows that treatment initiation is happening before culture is available, so the culture results themselves aren't changing the decision to start treatment.
+
+Then there's the DST part. They did DST on 79.3% of positive cultures. Out of those, 25.2% showed resistance, 6.7% MDR, and 0.84% XDR. But only 23.5% returned for DST results, and treatment was modified in just 4 patients (3.4%). That's a very small percentage. So even when DST results are available, they don't lead to many changes in treatment. 
+
+The study's objective was to see if solid culture (LJ) influences clinical decisions. But the results indicate that patients are starting treatment before culture results come in, so the culture results aren't affecting the initial decision. The DST results also don't cause many treatment modifications. 
+
+I should consider why this might be. In India, TB treatment guidelines often recommend starting treatment immediately based on clinical suspicion, especially in resource-limited settings where culture takes time. So the high rate of treatment initiation
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+Solid culture results do not significantly influence initial treatment decisions, as 82.7% of culture-positive patients started treatment before culture results were available.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+Solid culture results do not significantly influence initial treatment decisions, as 82.7% of culture-positive patients started treatment before culture results were available.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: maybe
+- Parsed answer: no
+
+## pubmedqa_train_12
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Residual fundus or neofundus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: is fundectomy safe and effective as revision surgery?
+
+Context:
+INTRODUCTION: Up to 30 % of patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy require revision surgery for inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and/or the development of severe upper gastrointestinal symptoms. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic fundectomy (LF) in cases of a residual fundus/neofundus development regarding GERD symptoms.
+METHODS: The study group comprised 19 patients (17 female; mean BMI 35.4 kg/m(2)) divided into 2 groups. Group A (n = 10) patients with severe GERD and evidence of residual fundus/neofundus, Hiatal hernia with good results in terms of weight loss. Group B (n = 9) patients with severe GERD, a residual fundus/neofundus, inadequate weight loss or weight regain. Fundectomy was indicated when a residual fundus/neofundus was associated with severe GERD symptoms. The presence of a residual fundus/neofundus was assessed by a barium swallow and/or multislice computed tomography.
+RESULTS: No mortality or intra-operative complications occurred. Five postoperative complications occurred: 2 cases of bleeding, 1 mid-gastric stenosis and 2 leaks (10.5 %). All patients experienced improvements in their GERD symptoms and stopped PPI treatment. Group B exhibited an additional %EWL of 53.4 % at 24 months.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking about residual fundus or neofundus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and whether fundectomy is safe and effective as revision surgery. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a retrospective study with 19 patients divided into two groups: Group A (10 patients) with severe GERD and residual fundus/neofundus, and Group B (9 patients) with similar issues but also inadequate weight loss or regain. The study found no mortality or intra-op complications, five post-op complications (10.5%), and all patients improved GERD symptoms and stopped PPIs. Group B had an additional 53.4% weight loss at 24 months.
+
+First, I need to verify the key points from the study. The main question is about safety and efficacy of fundectomy for this specific issue. The study shows no deaths or major intra-op complications, which is good. The post-op complications were minor: bleeding, stenosis, leaks. The fact that all patients improved GERD symptoms is crucial because that's the primary indication—severe GERD due to residual fundus. Also, Group B's additional weight loss suggests fundectomy might help with weight loss too, not just GERD.
+
+Wait, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a gastroenterologist, considering revision surgery options. They probably want to know if fundectomy is a viable option for their patients who have persistent GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. The deeper need here could be understanding if they should perform fundectomy without risking complications, especially since some patients might have had weight regain or inadequate loss.
+
+I should check if the study's findings are robust. It's a retrospective study, so limitations like selection bias and small sample size (n=19) are important. The authors mention barium swallow and CT for assessing residual fundus, which is standard. But they didn't have a control group, so it's hard to isolate fundectomy's effect from other factors. Also, Group B had weight issues, so the weight loss improvement might be due to the fundectomy itself or other factors like continued diet adherence.
+
+The user might also be concerned about the safety profile. The complications were low (10.5%), but leaks and stenosis are serious. They need to know if the risks are acceptable compared to other revisions like redo sleeve or gastric bypass. The study says all patients stopped PPIs, which is a big plus for GER
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+Laparoscopic fundectomy is safe and effective for patients with residual neofundus and severe GERD, with significant symptom improvement and weight loss in the revision cohort.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+Laparoscopic fundectomy is safe and effective for patients with residual neofundus and severe GERD, with significant symptom improvement and weight loss in the revision cohort.  
+Final answer: yes
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: maybe
+- Parsed answer: yes
+
+## pubmedqa_train_13
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Are behavioural risk factors to be blamed for the conversion from optimal blood pressure to hypertensive status in Black South Africans?
+
+Context:
+BACKGROUND: Longitudinal cohort studies in sub-Saharan Africa are urgently needed to understand cardiovascular disease development. We, therefore, explored health behaviours and conventional risk factors of African individuals with optimal blood pressure (BP) (≤ 120/80 mm Hg), and their 5-year prediction for the development of hypertension.
+METHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study in the North West Province, South Africa, started in 2005 and included African volunteers (n = 1994; aged>30 years) from a sample of 6000 randomly selected households in rural and urban areas.
+RESULTS: At baseline, 48% of the participants were hypertensive (≥ 140/90 mmHg). Those with optimal BP (n = 478) were followed at a success rate of 70% for 5 years (213 normotensive, 68 hypertensive, 57 deceased). Africans that became hypertensive smoked more than the normotensive individuals (68.2% vs 49.8%), and they also had a greater waist circumference [ratio of geometric means of 0.94 cm (95% CI: 0.86-0.99)] and greater amount of γ-glutamyltransferase [0.74 U/l (95% CI: 0.62-0.88)]at baseline. The 5-year change in BP was independently explained by baseline γ-glutamyltransferase [R(2) = 0.23, β = 0.13 U/l (95% CI: 0.01-0.19)]. Alcohol intake also predicted central systolic BP and carotid cross-sectional wall area (CSWA) at follow-up. Waist circumference was another predictor of BP changes [β = 0.18 cm (95% CI: 0.05-0.24)]and CSWA. HIV infection was inversely associated with increased BP.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking whether behavioral risk factors are to be blamed for the conversion from optimal blood pressure to hypertensive status in Black South Africans. Let me start by understanding the context provided. The study is from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study in South Africa. They looked at Black South Africans with optimal BP (≤120/80 mmHg) and followed them for five years to see who developed hypertension.
+
+First, I need to recall the key findings from the results section. The study found that those who became hypertensive had higher smoking rates (68.2% vs 49.8%), larger waist circumference (geometric mean ratio 0.94), and higher γ-glutamyltransferase (0.74 U/l). Also, alcohol intake predicted central systolic BP and carotid wall area. Waist circumference was a predictor for BP changes. HIV infection was inversely associated with increased BP, which is interesting but maybe not directly relevant here.
+
+The user's question is about behavioral risk factors being "blamed." That's a bit strong. Blaming implies responsibility, but in public health, we usually talk about modifiable risks without assigning blame. I should be careful not to use judgmental language. The study shows associations, not causation. So, I need to clarify that correlation isn't causation.
+
+Looking at the behavioral factors mentioned: smoking, alcohol, physical activity (though not explicitly stated here), diet. The study highlights smoking, waist circumference (which relates to obesity, a behavioral factor like diet and physical inactivity), and alcohol. γ-glutamyltransferase is a liver enzyme, often linked to alcohol consumption and liver disease, so that's a marker for alcohol-related damage. 
+
+The key point is that the study identified these as predictors. For example, baseline smoking was higher in those who developed hypertension. Similarly, waist circumference and γ-glutamyltransferase were independent predictors. But the question is whether these behavioral factors are "to be blamed." The answer should emphasize that while these factors are significant predictors, they're not the sole cause. There are other factors like genetics, socioeconomic conditions, healthcare access, which might play roles too.
+
+Also, the study is from South Africa, specifically Black South Africans. The context mentions the population is African, so cultural and socioeconomic factors specific to this group should be considered. For instance, in some communities, high salt intake due to dietary habits or limited access to fresh food might contribute.
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+Behavioral factors such as smoking, waist circumference, and alcohol intake were independently associated with the development of hypertension in Black South Africans with optimal blood pressure at baseline.  
+Final answer: maybe
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+Behavioral factors such as smoking, waist circumference, and alcohol intake were independently associated with the development of hypertension in Black South Africans with optimal blood pressure at baseline.  
+Final answer: maybe
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: yes
+- Parsed answer: maybe
+
+## pubmedqa_train_14
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Prognosis of low-tone sudden deafness - does it inevitably progress to Meniere's disease?
+
+Context:
+OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether low-tone SD was a precursor of Meniere's disease and whether patients with low-tone SD suffered from endolymphatic hydrops.
+PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective case review in the university hospital. A total of 184 patients with low-tone SD were divided into two groups with single and recurrent episodes. The progress, follow-up audiograms, and ECochG results of the patients were reviewed and compared with those of patients with high-tone SD and Meniere's disease.
+RESULTS: In all, 83 of 177 patients with low-tone SD unaccompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; 15 of the 83 developed vertiginous attacks. The remaining 94 patients had a single episode. Three of the seven patients with low-tone SD accompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; two of the three were subsequently confirmed to have Meniere's disease. The other four had a single episode. No difference in rate of progress from SD to Meniere's disease was observed among the low-tone and the high-tone SD groups. The average -SP/AP of each group with a single episode is smaller than that of other groups with recurrent episodes and Meniere's disease.
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking about the prognosis of low-tone sudden deafness (SD) and whether it inevitably progresses to Meniere's disease. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a study with 184 patients divided into groups with single and recurrent episodes of low-tone SD. The key points from the results are that out of 83 patients without vertigo who had recurrent hearing loss, 15 developed vertigo. Among the 7 with vertigo, 3 had recurrent hearing loss, and 2 of those were later diagnosed with Meniere's. The study also notes no difference in progression to Meniere's between low-tone and high-tone SD groups.
+
+Hmm, the user might be a patient or a caregiver who's worried after being diagnosed with low-tone SD. They're probably concerned about developing Meniere's and what the future holds. Their main question is if it's inevitable, but they might also be anxious about the progression and whether they need specific treatments.
+
+I should check the study's findings carefully. The study shows that only 2 out of 3 patients with recurrent hearing loss and vertigo developed Meniere's. That's a small number, so it's not inevitable. Also, the study emphasizes that low-tone SD without vertigo (the majority) doesn't progress to Meniere's. The key point here is that Meniere's disease typically involves vertigo, tinnitus, hearing loss, and ear fullness, whereas low-tone SD is a sudden hearing loss without those symptoms initially.
+
+Wait, the user might not realize that Meniere's is a specific condition with distinct symptoms. They might confuse sudden hearing loss with Meniere's progression. Clarifying the symptoms could help. Also, the study mentions that the average SP/AP ratio is smaller in single-episode cases, which might indicate less severe or different pathology.
+
+The user's deeper need is likely reassurance. They want to know if their condition will get worse and if they should take action. The answer should stress that low-tone SD doesn't inevitably lead to Meniere's. Most cases are single episodes and don't progress. Only a minority with recurrent episodes and vertigo might develop Meniere's, but even then, it's not certain.
+
+I should also mention that the study didn't find a difference between low-tone and high-tone SD in progression to Meniere's. That's important because some might think low-tone is more dangerous. But the data shows otherwise. The recurrence rate is higher in low-tone SD, but
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+Only 2 out of 3 patients with recurrent low-tone SD and vertigo progressed to Meniere's disease.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+Only 2 out of 3 patients with recurrent low-tone SD and vertigo progressed to Meniere's disease.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: no
+- Parsed answer: no
+
+## pubmedqa_train_15
+
+### Prompt
+
+```text
+Question: Is unsafe sexual behaviour increasing among HIV-infected individuals?
+
+Context:
+BACKGROUND: The number of new diagnoses of HIV infection is rising in the northwestern hemisphere and it is becoming increasingly important to understand the mechanisms behind this trend.
+OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether reported unsafe sexual behaviour among HIV- infected individuals is changing over time.
+DESIGN: Participants in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study were asked about their sexual practices every 6 months for 3 years during regular follow-up of the cohort beginning on 1 April 2000.
+METHODS: : Logistic regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations assuming a constant correlation between responses from the same individual.
+RESULTS: At least one sexual behaviour questionnaire was obtained for 6545 HIV-infected individuals and the median number of questionnaires completed per individual was five. There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sex over time in this population [odds ratio (OR), 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-1.05]. Females (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.19-1.60), 15-30 year olds (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47), those with HIV-positive partners (OR, 12.58; 95% CI, 10.84-14.07) and those with occasional partners (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.87-3.67) were more likely to report unsafe sex. There was no evidence of a response bias over time, but individuals were less willing to leave questions about their sexual behaviour unanswered or ambiguous (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97).
+```
+
+### Raw Output
+
+```text
+Okay, the user is asking if unsafe sexual behavior is increasing among HIV-infected individuals. Let me look at the context they provided. 
+
+Hmm, the study is from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, tracking people every six months for three years starting in 2000. They collected data on sexual practices. The main finding says there was no evidence of an increase in unsafe sex over time. The odds ratio is 1.0 with a confidence interval of 0.96 to 1.05. That's a bit tricky because the confidence interval includes 1, which means statistically, there's no significant change.
+
+Wait, the user might be concerned about rising HIV cases in the northwestern hemisphere. The background mentions new diagnoses are rising there, but the study specifically looks at HIV-infected individuals, not the general population. So even if new infections are up, this study is about people already infected. That's an important distinction. The user might be conflating the two.
+
+Also, the study found certain groups had higher rates of unsafe sex: females, younger people (15-30), those with HIV-positive partners, and those with occasional partners. But the key point is that over time, there wasn't an increase. The response bias part says people were less likely to leave questions unanswered, which might mean they're being more honest now, but the study adjusted for that.
+
+The user's deeper need might be understanding if current HIV trends are due to more risky behavior among infected people. But the study shows no increase in unsafe sex among the infected cohort. Maybe they're worried about transmission rates increasing because of this? But the study doesn't address transmission—just self-reported unsafe behavior. 
+
+I should clarify that the study doesn't show an increase in unsafe sex over time among those already infected. The rising new diagnoses in the region could be from other factors, like better testing or different populations. The user might need to know that while unsafe behavior isn't increasing in this group, other factors could be driving new infections. 
+
+Also, the confidence interval being close to 1 is important. Some might misinterpret the CI as "no change," but technically, it's not statistically significant. The study says "no evidence of an increase," so the answer is no. 
+
+I should make sure not to confuse this with the general population. The question is specifically about HIV-infected individuals. The study's population is already infected, so their behavior trends are what matter here. 
+
+The user might be a student
+```
+
+### Visible Output
+
+```text
+There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sexual behavior among HIV-infected individuals over time.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+### Fallback Output
+
+```text
+There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sexual behavior among HIV-infected individuals over time.  
+Final answer: no
+```
+
+- Has `</think>`: False
+- Visible answer text present: True
+- Gold answer: no
+- Parsed answer: no

runs/20260322T021329Z/iteration_01_pubmedqa_train_generation/pubmedqa_thinking_outputs.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_01", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 16361634, "prompt": "Question: Women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary: do they have Lynch syndrome?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; HNPCC) is an autosomal-dominant cancer predisposition syndrome that increases risk for multiple cancers, including colon, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. Revised Bethesda Criteria recommend that patients with two HNPCC-associated cancers undergo molecular evaluation to determine whether they have a mismatch repair (MMR) defect associated with HNPCC. The purpose of our study was to determine the likelihood of MMR defects (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1) in women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2004, 102 women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers were identified; 59 patients had tumor blocks available for analysis. Patients were divided into risk groups based on family history: high (met Amsterdam criteria), medium (personal history or first-degree relative with an HNPCC-associated cancer), and low (all others). Protein expression for MSH2, MSH6, and MLH1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Microsatellite instability and MLH1 promoter methylation analyses were performed on a subset of cases.\nRESULTS: Median age was 50 years. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria for HNPCC. Five additional patients, all medium-risk, had molecular findings consistent with a germline mutation of either MSH2 or MLH1. None of the low-risk patients had molecular results consistent with a germline mutation.", "question": "Women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary: do they have Lynch syndrome?", "context": "PURPOSE: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; HNPCC) is an autosomal-dominant cancer predisposition syndrome that increases risk for multiple cancers, including colon, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. Revised Bethesda Criteria recommend that patients with two HNPCC-associated cancers undergo molecular evaluation to determine whether they have a mismatch repair (MMR) defect associated with HNPCC. The purpose of our study was to determine the likelihood of MMR defects (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1) in women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2004, 102 women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers were identified; 59 patients had tumor blocks available for analysis. Patients were divided into risk groups based on family history: high (met Amsterdam criteria), medium (personal history or first-degree relative with an HNPCC-associated cancer), and low (all others). Protein expression for MSH2, MSH6, and MLH1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Microsatellite instability and MLH1 promoter methylation analyses were performed on a subset of cases.\nRESULTS: Median age was 50 years. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria for HNPCC. Five additional patients, all medium-risk, had molecular findings consistent with a germline mutation of either MSH2 or MLH1. None of the low-risk patients had molecular results consistent with a germline mutation.", "long_answer": "Overall, 7% of women in our cohort met either clinical or molecular criteria for Lynch syndrome. All of these women had a prior history or a first-degree relative with an HNPCC-associated cancer. Limiting genetic evaluation to women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer who have a family history suggestive of HNPCC may appropriately identify women with Lynch syndrome.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking whether women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary have Lynch syndrome. Let me start by recalling what Lynch syndrome is. It's an autosomal-dominant disorder that increases the risk for colorectal, endometrial, and ovarian cancers, among others. The key here is that Lynch syndrome involves defects in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, like MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, or PMS2.\n\nThe context provided is from a study. The study looked at 102 women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers between 1989 and 2004. They had 59 with tumor blocks available. They divided patients into risk groups based on family history: high (Amsterdam criteria), medium (personal or family history of HNPCC cancers), and low (others). They checked protein expression via immunohistochemistry for MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and also did microsatellite instability and MLH1 methylation tests on some.\n\nThe results say that median age was 50. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria (which is a high-risk family history), but that's only two out of 59. Then five additional medium-risk patients had molecular findings consistent with germline mutations in MSH2 or MLH1. None of the low-risk patients had such mutations. So, overall, out of the 59, 7 had some molecular evidence of Lynch (2 high-risk plus 5 medium-risk). But the question is about the likelihood in general.\n\nWait, the user might be a medical student or a healthcare professional trying to understand if these patients should be tested for Lynch. They might be dealing with a patient who has both cancers and want to know the next steps. The study shows that only a small percentage (7 out of 59) had Lynch-related mutations. But the study's sample is from 1989-2004, which might be outdated. Also, the criteria for Lynch have evolved since then.\n\nI should check the key points from the study. The revised Bethesda criteria mention that if someone has two HNPCC-associated cancers, they should get molecular testing. Here, synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers are both HNPCC-associated. So the study is relevant. The findings show that among the patients, only 7% (roughly) had Lynch mutations. But the two high-risk patients were already identified by", "visible_output": "Women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer have a small but significant likelihood of Lynch syndrome, particularly with a family history of HNPCC-associated cancers.  \nFinal answer: maybe", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "maybe", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "Women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer have a small but significant likelihood of Lynch syndrome, particularly with a family history of HNPCC-associated cancers.  \nFinal answer: maybe"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_02", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 27818079, "prompt": "Question: Is the Retromandibular Transparotid Approach a Reliable Option for the Surgical Treatment of Condylar Fractures?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: This study evaluated the outcomes and complications of the surgical treatment of condylar fractures by the retromandibular transparotid approach. The authors hypothesized that such an approach would be safe and reliable for the treatment of most condylar fractures.\nMATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients who underwent surgical reduction of a condylar fracture from January 2012 to December 2014 at the Clinic of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Hospital of Verona (Verona, Italy) was performed. Inclusion criteria were having undergone surgical treatment of condylar fractures with a retromandibular transparotid approach and the availability of computed tomograms of the preoperative and postoperative facial skeleton with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Static and dynamic occlusal function, temporomandibular joint health status, presence of neurologic impairments, and esthetic outcomes were evaluated in all patients.\nRESULTS: The sample was composed of 25 patients. Preinjury occlusion and temporomandibular joint health were restored in most patients. Esthetic outcomes were deemed satisfactory by clinicians and patients. Neither permanent neurologic impairments nor major postoperative complications were observed.", "question": "Is the Retromandibular Transparotid Approach a Reliable Option for the Surgical Treatment of Condylar Fractures?", "context": "PURPOSE: This study evaluated the outcomes and complications of the surgical treatment of condylar fractures by the retromandibular transparotid approach. The authors hypothesized that such an approach would be safe and reliable for the treatment of most condylar fractures.\nMATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients who underwent surgical reduction of a condylar fracture from January 2012 to December 2014 at the Clinic of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Hospital of Verona (Verona, Italy) was performed. Inclusion criteria were having undergone surgical treatment of condylar fractures with a retromandibular transparotid approach and the availability of computed tomograms of the preoperative and postoperative facial skeleton with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Static and dynamic occlusal function, temporomandibular joint health status, presence of neurologic impairments, and esthetic outcomes were evaluated in all patients.\nRESULTS: The sample was composed of 25 patients. Preinjury occlusion and temporomandibular joint health were restored in most patients. Esthetic outcomes were deemed satisfactory by clinicians and patients. Neither permanent neurologic impairments nor major postoperative complications were observed.", "long_answer": "According to the results of the present study, the retromandibular transparotid approach is a viable and safe approach for the surgical treatment of condylar fractures.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking whether the Retromandibular Transparotid Approach is a reliable option for treating condylar fractures. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study they mentioned is a retrospective analysis from Verona University Hospital between 2012 and 2014. They looked at 25 patients who had this specific surgical approach.\n\nFirst, I need to break down what the study says. The purpose was to check if this approach is safe and reliable. They compared pre-op and post-op CT scans, evaluated occlusion, TMJ health, neurologic issues, and aesthetics. The results show that most patients had restored occlusion and TMJ health. No permanent neurologic damage or major complications were reported. Aesthetics were good too.\n\nHmm, the user might be a medical student, a surgeon, or a patient. If they're a student or surgeon, they probably want to know if this approach is worth learning or using. If it's a patient, they might be worried about risks. But the question is phrased technically, so likely a professional. They need evidence-based info for clinical decisions.\n\nWait, the study has limitations. It's retrospective with only 25 patients. Small sample size means results might not be generalizable. Also, no control group—how do they know it's better than other approaches? The authors assumed it's safe, but without comparison, it's hard to say. They mention it's reliable for \"most\" fractures, but the study doesn't specify what \"most\" means. \n\nI should check if there are other studies. The context doesn't mention others, so I'll stick to this one. The key points: no major complications, good outcomes. But reliability? The term is tricky. In surgery, reliability implies consistency and low failure rates. Here, the approach worked for 25 cases without issues, but without a larger sample, it's not definitive. Also, condylar fractures vary—complex ones might not be covered. The study says \"most,\" so maybe they excluded severe cases?\n\nThe user might be concerned about alternatives. Like, is this approach better than others? The study doesn't compare it to other methods, so I can't say. But the authors hypothesized it's safe and reliable, and the results support that in their sample. \n\nAlso, the approach name: retromandibular transparotid. I remember that transparotid means through the parotid tissue", "visible_output": "In this retrospective study of 25 patients, the retromandibular transparotid approach achieved successful surgical reduction with restored occlusion, TMJ function, and satisfactory aesthetics, without major complications or permanent neurologic deficits.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "In this retrospective study of 25 patients, the retromandibular transparotid approach achieved successful surgical reduction with restored occlusion, TMJ function, and satisfactory aesthetics, without major complications or permanent neurologic deficits.  \nFinal answer: yes"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_03", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 21166749, "prompt": "Question: Is patient outcome compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVE: • Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) remains controversial in terms of oncologic outcomes, especially during the initial experience. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of initial experience of robotic cystectomy programs on oncologic outcomes and overall survival.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: • Utilizing a prospectively maintained, single institution robotic cystectomy database, we identified 164 consecutive patients who underwent RARC since November 2005. • After stratification by age group, gender, pathologic T stage, lymph node status, surgical margin status, and sequential case number; we used chi-squared analyses to correlate sequential case number to operative time, surgical blood loss, lymph node yield, and surgical margin status. • We also addressed the relationship between complications and sequential case number. We then utilized Cox proportional hazard modeling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to correlate variables to overall mortality.\nRESULTS: • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with increased incidence of complications, surgical blood loss, or positive surgical margins (P= 0.780, P= 0.548, P= 0.545). Case number was, however, significantly associated with shorter operative time and mean number of lymph nodes retrieved (P<0.001, P<0.001). • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with survival; however, tumour stage, the presence of lymph node metastases, and positive surgical margins were significantly associated with death. • Although being the largest of its kind, this was a small study with short follow-up when compared to open cystectomy series.", "question": "Is patient outcome compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy?", "context": "OBJECTIVE: • Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) remains controversial in terms of oncologic outcomes, especially during the initial experience. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of initial experience of robotic cystectomy programs on oncologic outcomes and overall survival.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: • Utilizing a prospectively maintained, single institution robotic cystectomy database, we identified 164 consecutive patients who underwent RARC since November 2005. • After stratification by age group, gender, pathologic T stage, lymph node status, surgical margin status, and sequential case number; we used chi-squared analyses to correlate sequential case number to operative time, surgical blood loss, lymph node yield, and surgical margin status. • We also addressed the relationship between complications and sequential case number. We then utilized Cox proportional hazard modeling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to correlate variables to overall mortality.\nRESULTS: • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with increased incidence of complications, surgical blood loss, or positive surgical margins (P= 0.780, P= 0.548, P= 0.545). Case number was, however, significantly associated with shorter operative time and mean number of lymph nodes retrieved (P<0.001, P<0.001). • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with survival; however, tumour stage, the presence of lymph node metastases, and positive surgical margins were significantly associated with death. • Although being the largest of its kind, this was a small study with short follow-up when compared to open cystectomy series.", "long_answer": "• Initial experience with RARC did not affect the incidence of positive surgical margins, operative/postoperative complications, or overall survival in a single-institution series.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking whether patient outcomes are compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. The study they mentioned looked at 164 patients who had RARC from 2005 onwards. They stratified patients by age, gender, pathologic stage, lymph node status, surgical margins, and sequential case number.\n\nHmm, the key point here is the impact of being an early case in the program. The results showed that sequential case number wasn't significantly linked to complications, blood loss, or positive margins. That's important because those are common concerns about initial experiences. But they did find that as case numbers increased, operative time decreased and lymph node yield went up. So technically, the surgeons got better at the procedure over time.\n\nWait, the user might be a medical professional or a student researching this topic. They probably want to know if starting with robot-assisted cystectomy is risky for patients. The study's conclusion says that initial cases don't have worse outcomes in terms of complications or mortality. But the study is small and has short follow-up, which is a limitation. \n\nI should check the survival part. The results mention that tumor stage, lymph node metastases, and positive margins were significant for mortality, not the case number. So even in early cases, if the cancer is advanced or margins are positive, outcomes are worse. But the initial experience itself doesn't seem to hurt outcomes. \n\nThe user might be worried about adopting new tech. They might be a surgeon considering starting a robot program and want reassurance. The study shows that initial cases aren't worse, but the learning curve affects efficiency—shorter surgery time and more lymph nodes. That's a plus for accuracy, maybe reducing complications indirectly. \n\nAlso, the study is from a single institution, so it's not a broad comparison. But since it's the first study of its kind, it's a solid starting point. The user might need to know that while outcomes aren't worse initially, the learning curve means they should have experienced surgeons to handle early cases. \n\nI should emphasize that the main takeaway is no increased complications or mortality in early cases. The compromise isn't there, but efficiency improves with experience. The user's deeper need might be whether to invest in robot-assisted surgery early on without fearing worse outcomes for patients. The answer here is yes, initial outcomes are comparable, but ongoing learning is beneficial for better results over time.\n</think>\n\nBased **solely on", "visible_output": "Sequential case number was not significantly associated with complications, blood loss, or mortality in robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Final answer: no", "has_think_close": true, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "Sequential case number was not significantly associated with complications, blood loss, or mortality in robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Final answer: no"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_04", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 15388567, "prompt": "Question: Are sports medicine journals relevant and applicable to practitioners and athletes?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence base of sports medicine research and assess how relevant and applicable it is to everyday practice.\nMETHODS: Original research articles, short reports, and case reports published in four major sport and exercise medicine journals were studied and classified according to the main topic of study and type of subjects used.\nRESULTS: The most common topic was sports science, and very few studies related to the treatment of injuries and medical conditions. The majority of published articles used healthy subjects sampled from the sedentary population, and few studies have been carried out on injured participants.", "question": "Are sports medicine journals relevant and applicable to practitioners and athletes?", "context": "OBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence base of sports medicine research and assess how relevant and applicable it is to everyday practice.\nMETHODS: Original research articles, short reports, and case reports published in four major sport and exercise medicine journals were studied and classified according to the main topic of study and type of subjects used.\nRESULTS: The most common topic was sports science, and very few studies related to the treatment of injuries and medical conditions. The majority of published articles used healthy subjects sampled from the sedentary population, and few studies have been carried out on injured participants.", "long_answer": "There is a dearth of studies addressing diagnostic and treatment interventions in the sports medicine literature. The evidence base for sports medicine must continue to increase in terms of volume and quality.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking if sports medicine journals are relevant and applicable to practitioners and athletes. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. The context mentions a study that looked at four major sports medicine journals. The key findings were that the most common topic was sports science, with few studies on injury treatment. Also, most articles used healthy sedentary subjects, not injured athletes.\n\nHmm, the user is probably a practitioner—maybe a physical therapist, sports medic, coach, or an athlete themselves. They want to know if the journals they read will help them in real life. But deeper, they might be worried that the research they're reading isn't practical. Like, if they're treating an injury, do they need to read these journals? Or maybe they're a student trying to understand if this field is worth their time.\n\nThe context says that only a few studies focus on treatment. That's a big point. Practitioners need injury management info, but if the journals are mostly about sports science (like performance metrics, physiology), that might not directly help with treating injuries. Also, the subjects are often healthy people, not injured athletes. So the research might not apply to someone with a sprained ankle or something.\n\nWait, the user might be concerned about time. They have busy schedules and don't want to read irrelevant stuff. They need quick, actionable info. The context shows that the evidence base is skewed towards healthy populations, which means the journals might not address real-world injuries. That's a problem for practitioners dealing with actual patients.\n\nAnother angle: athletes might think the journals have the latest training methods. But if the studies are on sedentary people, the findings might not translate. For example, a study on muscle strength in non-athletes might not apply to a soccer player recovering from a knee injury. So applicability is low here.\n\nI should also consider the \"relevant\" part. The context says sports science is common. For athletes, that could be relevant for performance, but if they're dealing with injuries, maybe not. Practitioners might need more clinical studies. The study found few injury treatment studies, so the journals might not be sufficient for that.\n\nThe user's deeper need might be about efficiency. They want to know if they should spend time reading these journals or if there's better sources. Maybe they've noticed that the research doesn't help them in practice and are frustrated. They might be looking for validation that it's okay to focus elsewhere, like clinical guidelines or specific injury protocols.", "visible_output": "The majority of studies in sports medicine journals focus on sports science in healthy populations, with few addressing injury treatment or clinical applications.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "The majority of studies in sports medicine journals focus on sports science in healthy populations, with few addressing injury treatment or clinical applications.  \nFinal answer: no"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_05", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 23359100, "prompt": "Question: Is etoricoxib effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: Heterotopic ossification is a common complication after total hip arthroplasty. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to prevent heterotopic ossifications effectively, however gastrointestinal complaints are reported frequently. In this study, we investigated whether etoricoxib, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor that produces fewer gastrointestinal side effects, is an effective alternative for the prevention of heterotopic ossification.\nMETHODS: We investigated the effectiveness of oral etoricoxib 90 mg for seven days in a prospective two-stage study design for phase-2 clinical trials in a small sample of patients (n = 42). A cemented primary total hip arthroplasty was implanted for osteoarthritis. Six months after surgery, heterotopic ossification was determined on anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using the Brooker classification.\nRESULTS: No heterotopic ossification was found in 62 % of the patients that took etoricoxib; 31 % of the patients had Brooker grade 1 and 7 % Brooker grade 2 ossification.", "question": "Is etoricoxib effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty?", "context": "PURPOSE: Heterotopic ossification is a common complication after total hip arthroplasty. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to prevent heterotopic ossifications effectively, however gastrointestinal complaints are reported frequently. In this study, we investigated whether etoricoxib, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor that produces fewer gastrointestinal side effects, is an effective alternative for the prevention of heterotopic ossification.\nMETHODS: We investigated the effectiveness of oral etoricoxib 90 mg for seven days in a prospective two-stage study design for phase-2 clinical trials in a small sample of patients (n = 42). A cemented primary total hip arthroplasty was implanted for osteoarthritis. Six months after surgery, heterotopic ossification was determined on anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using the Brooker classification.\nRESULTS: No heterotopic ossification was found in 62 % of the patients that took etoricoxib; 31 % of the patients had Brooker grade 1 and 7 % Brooker grade 2 ossification.", "long_answer": "Etoricoxib seems effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty. This finding further supports the use of COX-2 inhibitors for the prevention of heterotopic ossification following total hip arthroplasty.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking if etoricoxib is effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty. Let me look at the context they provided.\n\nFirst, the study they mentioned is a phase-2 trial with 42 patients. The purpose was to see if etoricoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor with fewer GI side effects, works better than regular NSAIDs for preventing heterotopic ossification (HO). The key here is that they compared it to what's already known—NSAIDs are effective but cause GI issues. \n\nThe results say 62% of patients taking etoricoxib had no HO. That's a pretty good rate. But wait, the study is small (n=42) and phase-2, so it's not a large-scale trial. The Brooker classification shows 31% grade 1 and 7% grade 2 ossification. The control group isn't mentioned here, which is a bit odd. In phase-2 trials, they usually have a control group. The context says it's a two-stage study, but the results only report the etoricoxib group. Hmm, maybe the comparison is implied? Or perhaps the study didn't have a control group? The user's context doesn't specify the control group's outcomes. That's a limitation.\n\nThe user might be a medical professional, like an orthopedic surgeon or a patient. If they're a surgeon, they care about efficacy and safety. The study shows etoricoxib reduced HO compared to what? Without a control group, it's hard to say. But the context says \"we investigated whether etoricoxib... is an effective alternative,\" so maybe the study was designed to compare it against standard care? Wait, the context mentions NSAIDs are known to prevent HO, so etoricoxib is being tested as a better alternative. But the results only give the etoricoxib group's data. \n\nI recall that in some studies, they might use a historical control or a placebo group. Here, it's a two-stage study. The results say 62% no HO, but without knowing the baseline rate, it's tricky. For example, if the standard is 40% no HO, then 62% is better. But the context doesn't provide that. \n\nAlso, the study duration is seven days of etoricoxib. HO prevention usually", "visible_output": "Etoricoxib showed a high rate of heterotopic ossification prevention (62% no HO) in a small phase-2 trial, suggesting efficacy comparable to NSAIDs with fewer gastrointestinal side effects.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "Etoricoxib showed a high rate of heterotopic ossification prevention (62% no HO) in a small phase-2 trial, suggesting efficacy comparable to NSAIDs with fewer gastrointestinal side effects.  \nFinal answer: yes"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_06", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 25810292, "prompt": "Question: Is minimally invasive mitral valve repair with artificial chords reproducible and applicable in routine surgery?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVES: Traditional resectional techniques and chordal transfer are difficult to apply in video-assisted mitral valve repair. Using artificial chords appears easier in this setting. The purpose of this study was to review the effectiveness and reproducibility of neochordal repair as a routine approach to minimally invasive mitral repair, and to assess the stability of neochord implantation using the figure-of-eight suture without pledgets in this setting.\nMETHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve repair from 2008 to 2013. The primary endpoints were recurrent mitral regurgitation and reoperation.\nRESULTS: A total of 426 consecutive patients were included during the study period, with a mean age of 55 ± 18 years. Neochords were used in all patients, and in association with leaflet resection in 47 patients. One patient was not repairable and underwent valve replacement (repair rate, 99.8%). Fifteen patients had Grade I (3.5%) regurgitation, whereas the remainder had none. Patients were fast-tracked, with 25% extubated in the operation theatre and the remainder within 6 h. There were 5 deaths within 30 days (1.2%). Follow-up ranged 3-60 months, during which all of the patients remained with no or trace mitral regurgitation. No de-insertion or rupture of any neochords was found, and no patients required a reoperation.", "question": "Is minimally invasive mitral valve repair with artificial chords reproducible and applicable in routine surgery?", "context": "OBJECTIVES: Traditional resectional techniques and chordal transfer are difficult to apply in video-assisted mitral valve repair. Using artificial chords appears easier in this setting. The purpose of this study was to review the effectiveness and reproducibility of neochordal repair as a routine approach to minimally invasive mitral repair, and to assess the stability of neochord implantation using the figure-of-eight suture without pledgets in this setting.\nMETHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve repair from 2008 to 2013. The primary endpoints were recurrent mitral regurgitation and reoperation.\nRESULTS: A total of 426 consecutive patients were included during the study period, with a mean age of 55 ± 18 years. Neochords were used in all patients, and in association with leaflet resection in 47 patients. One patient was not repairable and underwent valve replacement (repair rate, 99.8%). Fifteen patients had Grade I (3.5%) regurgitation, whereas the remainder had none. Patients were fast-tracked, with 25% extubated in the operation theatre and the remainder within 6 h. There were 5 deaths within 30 days (1.2%). Follow-up ranged 3-60 months, during which all of the patients remained with no or trace mitral regurgitation. No de-insertion or rupture of any neochords was found, and no patients required a reoperation.", "long_answer": "Minimally invasive mitral valve repair using neochords provided a high rate of repair, reproducible results in a routine cardiac surgery setting and stable repair during follow-up. This has become our preferred technique for mitral valve surgery.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking whether minimally invasive mitral valve repair with artificial chords is reproducible and applicable in routine surgery. Let me start by going through the context they provided. \n\nFirst, the study is a retrospective review from 2008 to 2013 with 426 patients. The main points here are that they used artificial chords in all patients, with leaflet resection in 47 cases. The repair rate was 99.8%, which is really high. That's a good sign for reproducibility because almost all patients were successfully repaired without needing valve replacement.\n\nThe outcomes show that 15 patients (3.5%) had Grade I regurgitation, which is mild. The rest had none. Also, no neochord de-insertion or rupture was reported. That's crucial because if the artificial chords were coming loose or breaking, that would be a problem. Plus, no reoperations were needed. That suggests the technique is stable and reliable.\n\nThe study mentions that patients were fast-tracked, with 25% extubated in the operating room and others within 6 hours. That's a quick recovery time, which is a plus for routine use. The 30-day mortality was 1.2%, which is low, especially considering the patient age (mean 55 ± 18 years). \n\nHmm, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a cardiac resident, looking to implement this technique. They probably want to know if this method is something they can rely on day-to-day without too many complications. The key here is reproducibility—can different surgeons do this consistently? The study shows high success rates and no failures, but it's a retrospective study. That means they didn't have a control group or multiple surgeons doing the same technique. Still, the large sample size (426 patients) adds weight to the findings.\n\nAlso, the technique uses figure-of-eight sutures without pledgets. The context says they assessed stability without pledgets, which is interesting because pledgets can cause tissue damage. Using non-pledget sutures might reduce complications, which is good for routine use. \n\nWait, the user might be concerned about the learning curve. The study doesn't mention training or how many surgeons were involved. But since it's a retrospective review, it's possible that the same team did all the procedures, which could affect reproducibility across different surgeons. However, the high repair rate and", "visible_output": "Neochordal repair with figure-of-eight sutures without pledgets achieved 99.8% repair rate and no neochord de-insertion or reoperation in 426 patients.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "Neochordal repair with figure-of-eight sutures without pledgets achieved 99.8% repair rate and no neochord de-insertion or reoperation in 426 patients.  \nFinal answer: yes"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_07", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 17062225, "prompt": "Question: Thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair: is reimplantation of spinal cord arteries a waste of time?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The impact of different strategies for management of intercostal and lumbar arteries during repair of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAA/A) on the prevention of paraplegia remains poorly understood.\nMETHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEP) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) during TAA/A repair involving serial segmental artery sacrifice (October 2002 to December 2004) were reviewed.\nRESULTS: Operative mortality was 6%. The median intensive care unit stay was 2.5 days (IQ range: 1-4 days), and the median hospital stay 10.0 days (IQ range: 8-17 days). Potentials remained unchanged during the course of serial segmental artery sacrifice, or could be returned to baseline levels by anesthetic and blood pressure manipulation, in 99 of 100 cases. An average of 8.0 +/- 2.6 segmental artery pairs were sacrificed overall, with an average of 4.5 +/- 2.1 segmental pairs sacrificed between T7 and L1, where the artery of Adamkiewicz is presumed to arise. Postoperative paraplegia occurred in 2 patients. In 1, immediate paraplegia was precipitated by an intraoperative dissection, resulting in 6 hours of lower body ischemia. A second ambulatory patient had severe paraparesis albeit normal cerebral function after resuscitation from a respiratory arrest.", "question": "Thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair: is reimplantation of spinal cord arteries a waste of time?", "context": "BACKGROUND: The impact of different strategies for management of intercostal and lumbar arteries during repair of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAA/A) on the prevention of paraplegia remains poorly understood.\nMETHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEP) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) during TAA/A repair involving serial segmental artery sacrifice (October 2002 to December 2004) were reviewed.\nRESULTS: Operative mortality was 6%. The median intensive care unit stay was 2.5 days (IQ range: 1-4 days), and the median hospital stay 10.0 days (IQ range: 8-17 days). Potentials remained unchanged during the course of serial segmental artery sacrifice, or could be returned to baseline levels by anesthetic and blood pressure manipulation, in 99 of 100 cases. An average of 8.0 +/- 2.6 segmental artery pairs were sacrificed overall, with an average of 4.5 +/- 2.1 segmental pairs sacrificed between T7 and L1, where the artery of Adamkiewicz is presumed to arise. Postoperative paraplegia occurred in 2 patients. In 1, immediate paraplegia was precipitated by an intraoperative dissection, resulting in 6 hours of lower body ischemia. A second ambulatory patient had severe paraparesis albeit normal cerebral function after resuscitation from a respiratory arrest.", "long_answer": "With monitoring of MEP and SSEP, sacrifice--without reimplantation--of as many as 15 intercostal and lumbar arteries during TAA/A repair is safe, resulting in acceptably low rates of immediate and delayed paraplegia. This experience suggests that routine surgical implantation of segmental vessels is not indicated, and that, with evolving understanding of spinal cord perfusion, endovascular repair of the entire thoracic aorta should ultimately be possible without spinal cord injury.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking if reimplantation of spinal cord arteries is a waste of time during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study they mentioned had 100 patients with MEP and SSEP monitoring during TAA/A repairs. The key findings were that potentials stayed stable during segmental artery sacrifice in 99 out of 100 cases, and only 2 patients had paraplegia—both due to complications like dissection or respiratory arrest.\n\nHmm, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a resident in vascular surgery. They're probably involved in these procedures and want to know if the time spent reimplanting arteries is necessary. Their main concern is likely the efficiency of the surgery versus the risk of complications. They might be worried about the time it takes and whether it's worth it given the low incidence of paraplegia.\n\nWait, the study shows that in 99 cases, the potentials didn't change, meaning the spinal cord was probably protected. Only two patients had paraplegia, both from other causes. So reimplantation might not be needed in most cases. But why do they do it then? The answer has to address that reimplantation is a precaution, not a routine step. \n\nI remember that the artery of Adamkiewicz is critical. Sacrificing segments above it can lead to ischemia. The study mentions an average of 4.5 segmental pairs sacrificed between T7 and L1. Reimplantation is done to protect that artery. But the data shows that in most cases, the spinal cord is spared because the arteries can be managed without reimplantation. \n\nThe user's deeper need might be to justify the time spent on reimplantation in their practice. They might be looking for evidence to support or challenge the standard procedure. The study's results suggest that reimplantation isn't always necessary because the monitoring shows stability. But it's still done as a safety measure. \n\nAlso, the two cases of paraplegia were due to dissections or respiratory issues, not the reimplantation itself. That's important. So the procedure isn't causing the complications; other factors are. The user might be concerned that reimplantation is adding unnecessary steps, but the study shows it's effective in preventing complications when done.\n\nI should check if the study's methods are relevant. They", "visible_output": "In 99 of 100 cases, spinal cord function remained stable during segmental artery sacrifice, with paraplegia occurring due to unrelated complications.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "In 99 of 100 cases, spinal cord function remained stable during segmental artery sacrifice, with paraplegia occurring due to unrelated complications.  \nFinal answer: no"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_08", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 16249670, "prompt": "Question: Does the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia exist?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The placement of the superficial cervical plexus block has been the subject of controversy. Although the investing cervical fascia has been considered as an impenetrable barrier, clinically, the placement of the block deep or superficial to the fascia provides the same effective anesthesia. The underlying mechanism is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the three-dimensional organization of connective tissues in the anterior region of the neck.\nMETHODS: Using a combination of dissection, E12 sheet plastination, and confocal microscopy, fascial structures in the anterior cervical triangle were examined in 10 adult human cadavers.\nRESULTS: In the upper cervical region, the fascia of strap muscles in the middle and the fasciae of the submandibular glands on both sides formed a dumbbell-like fascia sheet that had free lateral margins and did not continue with the sternocleidomastoid fascia. In the lower cervical region, no single connective tissue sheet extended directly between the sternocleidomastoid muscles. The fascial structure deep to platysma in the anterior cervical triangle comprised the strap fascia.", "question": "Does the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia exist?", "context": "BACKGROUND: The placement of the superficial cervical plexus block has been the subject of controversy. Although the investing cervical fascia has been considered as an impenetrable barrier, clinically, the placement of the block deep or superficial to the fascia provides the same effective anesthesia. The underlying mechanism is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the three-dimensional organization of connective tissues in the anterior region of the neck.\nMETHODS: Using a combination of dissection, E12 sheet plastination, and confocal microscopy, fascial structures in the anterior cervical triangle were examined in 10 adult human cadavers.\nRESULTS: In the upper cervical region, the fascia of strap muscles in the middle and the fasciae of the submandibular glands on both sides formed a dumbbell-like fascia sheet that had free lateral margins and did not continue with the sternocleidomastoid fascia. In the lower cervical region, no single connective tissue sheet extended directly between the sternocleidomastoid muscles. The fascial structure deep to platysma in the anterior cervical triangle comprised the strap fascia.", "long_answer": "This study provides anatomical evidence to indicate that the so-called investing cervical fascia does not exist in the anterior triangle of the neck. Taking the previous reports together, the authors' findings strongly suggest that deep potential spaces in the neck are directly continuous with the subcutaneous tissue.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking if the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia exists. Let me start by recalling the standard anatomy of the cervical fascia. I remember that there are four layers: superficial, pretracheal, deep, and investing. The investing layer is the outermost one, surrounding the neck muscles.\n\nHmm, the context provided talks about a study on the superficial cervical plexus block. The study mentions that the investing fascia was thought to be an impenetrable barrier, but they found that blocks placed deep or superficial to it still worked. The methods involved dissection and imaging in cadavers. The results say that in the upper cervical region, there's a dumbbell-shaped fascia from strap muscles and submandibular glands without connecting to the sternocleidomastoid fascia. In the lower region, no single sheet connects the sternocleidomastoid muscles. The deep fascia under platysma is the strap fascia.\n\nWait, the key point here is that the study is challenging the traditional view. The investing layer is usually described as the deepest layer that surrounds the neck structures. But the study found that in the anterior triangle, there's no continuous investing fascia. Instead, the deep fascia there is the strap fascia. The study says the investing fascia doesn't form a continuous sheet in the anterior region. \n\nI should check if the investing layer is considered to exist elsewhere. The standard anatomy has the investing layer as the outermost, but in the anterior neck, it might not be continuous. The study's results indicate that in the upper cervical region, the fascia doesn't connect to the sternocleidomastoid fascia, meaning there's no single investing layer there. The deep fascia under platysma is strap fascia, which is part of the deep layer but not the investing layer.\n\nThe user might be a medical student or a professional in anesthesiology, given the context about nerve blocks. They probably encountered conflicting information and want clarity. Their deeper need is understanding the anatomical variations to apply it in clinical practice, especially for nerve blocks. They might be confused because some sources say investing fascia is a barrier, but the study shows it's not continuous.\n\nI recall that the investing fascia (deep layer) is continuous with the deep cervical fascia, but in the anterior triangle, it's interrupted. The study's finding that there's no single sheet extending between sternocleidomastoid muscles", "visible_output": "The study found no continuous investing fascia sheet extending between the sternocleidomastoid muscles in the anterior cervical region.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "The study found no continuous investing fascia sheet extending between the sternocleidomastoid muscles in the anterior cervical region.  \nFinal answer: no"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_09", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 28011794, "prompt": "Question: Can Ambu self-inflating bag and Neopuff infant resuscitator provide adequate and safe manual inflations for infants up to 10 kg weight?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: Manual resuscitation devices for infants and newborns must be able to provide adequate ventilation in a safe and consistent manner across a wide range of patient sizes (0.5-10 kg) and differing clinical states. There are little comparative data assessing biomechanical performance of common infant manual resuscitation devices across the manufacturers' recommended operating weight ranges. We aimed to compare performance of the Ambu self-inflating bag (SIB) with the Neopuff T-piece resuscitator in three resuscitation models.\nMETHODS: Five experienced clinicians delivered targeted ventilation to three lung models differing in compliance, delivery pressures and inflation rates; Preterm (0.5 mL/cmH2O, 25/5 cmH2O, 60 per minute), Term (3 mL/cmH2O, 30/5 cmH2O, 40 per minute) and Infant (9 mL/cmH2O, 35/5 cmH2O, 30 per minute). The Neopuff was examined with three gas inflow rates (5 litres per minute (LPM), 10 LPM and 15 LPM) and the Ambu with no gas inflow.\nRESULTS: 3309 inflations were collected and analysed with analysis of variance for repeated measures. The Neopuff was unable to reach set peak inflation pressures and exhibited seriously elevated positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) with all inflow gas rates (p<0.001) in this infant model. The Ambu SIB accurately delivered targeted pressures in all three models.", "question": "Can Ambu self-inflating bag and Neopuff infant resuscitator provide adequate and safe manual inflations for infants up to 10 kg weight?", "context": "BACKGROUND: Manual resuscitation devices for infants and newborns must be able to provide adequate ventilation in a safe and consistent manner across a wide range of patient sizes (0.5-10 kg) and differing clinical states. There are little comparative data assessing biomechanical performance of common infant manual resuscitation devices across the manufacturers' recommended operating weight ranges. We aimed to compare performance of the Ambu self-inflating bag (SIB) with the Neopuff T-piece resuscitator in three resuscitation models.\nMETHODS: Five experienced clinicians delivered targeted ventilation to three lung models differing in compliance, delivery pressures and inflation rates; Preterm (0.5 mL/cmH2O, 25/5 cmH2O, 60 per minute), Term (3 mL/cmH2O, 30/5 cmH2O, 40 per minute) and Infant (9 mL/cmH2O, 35/5 cmH2O, 30 per minute). The Neopuff was examined with three gas inflow rates (5 litres per minute (LPM), 10 LPM and 15 LPM) and the Ambu with no gas inflow.\nRESULTS: 3309 inflations were collected and analysed with analysis of variance for repeated measures. The Neopuff was unable to reach set peak inflation pressures and exhibited seriously elevated positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) with all inflow gas rates (p<0.001) in this infant model. The Ambu SIB accurately delivered targeted pressures in all three models.", "long_answer": "The Ambu SIB was able to accurately deliver targeted pressures across all three models from preterm to infant. The Neopuff infant resuscitator was unable to deliver the targeted pressures in the infant model developing clinically significant levels of inadvertent PEEP which may pose risk during infant resuscitation.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking if Ambu self-inflating bags and Neopuff infant resuscitators can safely and adequately manually inflate infants up to 10 kg. Let me start by recalling the context provided. The study compared these two devices in three different lung models: preterm, term, and infant. \n\nFirst, I need to check the key findings from the study. The Neopuff had issues with not reaching the set peak pressures and high PEEP across all gas inflow rates. That's a problem because high PEEP can cause lung damage, especially in infants. The Ambu SIB, on the other hand, delivered the targeted pressures accurately in all models. \n\nThe user mentioned infants up to 10 kg. The study's models were for 0.5 to 10 kg, so that's relevant. The preterm model was 0.5 mL/cmH2O, which is for very low birth weight, term is 3 mL/cmH2O, and infant is 9 mL/cmH2O. These correspond to different weight ranges. The study tested up to 10 kg, so the data covers the user's query.\n\nWait, the user might be a healthcare professional, maybe a nurse or a doctor in a setting where they use these devices. They could be concerned about choosing the right device for infants, especially in emergencies. Their real need might be ensuring they're not causing harm with the wrong device. They might have heard conflicting info about Neopuff being good for infants but the study shows issues.\n\nThe study found Neopuff couldn't reach peak pressures and had high PEEP. That's critical because in infants, high PEEP can lead to barotrauma or volutrauma. The Ambu worked fine. But the user asked about \"manual inflations.\" The study used experienced clinicians, so it's about skilled use. The Neopuff requires gas flow, which might not be reliable if the clinician isn't careful. \n\nAlso, the context says Neopuff is a T-piece resuscitator. Some people might confuse it with other devices. The study tested it with 5, 10, 15 LPM, but all had issues. The Ambu didn't need gas inflow, so it's simpler. \n\nI should consider if there are any caveats. The study used simulated lung models, not real infants. Real infants have variability, but the study covers the range up to 1", "visible_output": "The Ambu self-inflating bag accurately delivered targeted pressures across all lung models, including those simulating infants up to 10 kg, while the Neopuff failed to reach set pressures and produced harmful elevated PEEP.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "The Ambu self-inflating bag accurately delivered targeted pressures across all lung models, including those simulating infants up to 10 kg, while the Neopuff failed to reach set pressures and produced harmful elevated PEEP.  \nFinal answer: yes"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_10", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 17578985, "prompt": "Question: Parasacral sciatic nerve block: does the elicited motor response predict the success rate?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the tibial and the peroneal evoked motor response with regard to efficacy of sciatic nerve block using the parasacral approach.\nMETHODS: Twenty-six ASA I-III patients scheduled for elective lower limb surgery were randomized to receive a parasacral sciatic block, using a nerve stimulator technique seeking either a tibial (n = 14) or peroneal (n = 12) motor response. After the evoked motor response was obtained, a solution of 10 mL 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine (actual final concentration of epinephrine, 1/160,000) was slowly injected through the needle. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed every 5 min for 30 min by an anesthesiologist blinded to the elicited motor response. If the block was not complete 30 min after injection of the local anesthetics, it was considered as failed, and general anesthesia was supplemented.\nRESULTS: Time to perform the block and level of minimal and maximal stimulation were not different between groups. The success rate of complete block was significantly higher in the tibial compared to the peroneal group (11 of 14 vs 2 of 12; P = 0.002).", "question": "Parasacral sciatic nerve block: does the elicited motor response predict the success rate?", "context": "BACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the tibial and the peroneal evoked motor response with regard to efficacy of sciatic nerve block using the parasacral approach.\nMETHODS: Twenty-six ASA I-III patients scheduled for elective lower limb surgery were randomized to receive a parasacral sciatic block, using a nerve stimulator technique seeking either a tibial (n = 14) or peroneal (n = 12) motor response. After the evoked motor response was obtained, a solution of 10 mL 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine (actual final concentration of epinephrine, 1/160,000) was slowly injected through the needle. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed every 5 min for 30 min by an anesthesiologist blinded to the elicited motor response. If the block was not complete 30 min after injection of the local anesthetics, it was considered as failed, and general anesthesia was supplemented.\nRESULTS: Time to perform the block and level of minimal and maximal stimulation were not different between groups. The success rate of complete block was significantly higher in the tibial compared to the peroneal group (11 of 14 vs 2 of 12; P = 0.002).", "long_answer": "Eliciting a tibial motor response predicts a higher success rate than eliciting a peroneal motor response with parasacral sciatic nerve block.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking whether the elicited motor response in a parasacral sciatic nerve block predicts the success rate. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a specific study comparing tibial versus peroneal motor responses in parasacral sciatic blocks.\n\nFirst, I need to understand the study details. The study had 26 patients randomized into two groups: tibial (n=14) and peroneal (n=12). They used nerve stimulation to elicit a motor response before injecting local anesthetics. The success was defined as a complete block at 30 minutes. The results showed a higher success rate in the tibial group (11/14) compared to peroneal (2/12), with a p-value of 0.002. \n\nHmm, the key point here is that the tibial response group had a higher success rate. But the user is asking if the elicited motor response itself predicts success. The study directly compares the two responses, so the answer should be yes, based on this data. But I should check if there's more nuance.\n\nWait, the study says the success rate was significantly higher in the tibial group. That implies that eliciting the tibial response correlates with better outcomes. But does that mean the response predicts success? The study's design is a bit specific. They were testing whether using tibial vs. peroneal stimulation leads to different success rates. So, the result suggests that targeting the tibial nerve (via the motor response) is more predictive of a successful block than peroneal.\n\nI should also consider the methodology. They used a nerve stimulator to get the motor response before injection. The success was assessed after 30 minutes. The study found that when they elicited the tibial response, more patients achieved a complete block. So, in this context, yes, the elicited motor response (tibial) predicted higher success.\n\nBut is there a caveat? The user might be a medical professional, maybe an anesthesiologist or a student. They probably want to know if they can use the motor response as a reliable predictor in practice. The study shows a statistically significant difference, but the peroneal group had a low success rate (2 out of 12). That's important because it suggests that peroneal stimulation might not be as reliable. \n\nAlso, the study is prospective and randomized", "visible_output": "Eliciting a tibial motor response is associated with a significantly higher success rate of complete sciatic nerve block compared to peroneal response.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "Eliciting a tibial motor response is associated with a significantly higher success rate of complete sciatic nerve block compared to peroneal response.  \nFinal answer: yes"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_11", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 21756515, "prompt": "Question: Does solid culture for tuberculosis influence clinical decision making in India?\n\nContext:\nSETTING: Medical units at an academic tertiary referral hospital in Southern India.\nOBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of solid culture on Löwenstein-Jensen medium on clinical decision making.\nDESIGN: In a retrospective review of 150 culture-positive and 150 culture-negative consecutively sampled tuberculosis (TB) suspects, treatment decisions were analysed at presentation, after the availability of culture detection results and after the availability of drug susceptibility testing (DST) culture results.\nRESULTS: A total of 124 (82.7%) culture-positive patients and 35 (23.3%) culture-negative patients started anti-tuberculosis treatment prior to receiving their culture results; 101 patients (33.7%) returned for their results; two (1.3%) initiated treatment based on positive culture and no culture-negative patients discontinued treatment. DST was performed on 119 (79.3%) positive cultures: 30 (25.2%) showed any resistance, eight (6.7%) showed multidrug resistance and one (0.84%) showed extensively drug-resistant TB. Twenty-eight patients (23.5%) returned for their DST results. Based on DST, treatment was modified in four patients (3.4%).", "question": "Does solid culture for tuberculosis influence clinical decision making in India?", "context": "SETTING: Medical units at an academic tertiary referral hospital in Southern India.\nOBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of solid culture on Löwenstein-Jensen medium on clinical decision making.\nDESIGN: In a retrospective review of 150 culture-positive and 150 culture-negative consecutively sampled tuberculosis (TB) suspects, treatment decisions were analysed at presentation, after the availability of culture detection results and after the availability of drug susceptibility testing (DST) culture results.\nRESULTS: A total of 124 (82.7%) culture-positive patients and 35 (23.3%) culture-negative patients started anti-tuberculosis treatment prior to receiving their culture results; 101 patients (33.7%) returned for their results; two (1.3%) initiated treatment based on positive culture and no culture-negative patients discontinued treatment. DST was performed on 119 (79.3%) positive cultures: 30 (25.2%) showed any resistance, eight (6.7%) showed multidrug resistance and one (0.84%) showed extensively drug-resistant TB. Twenty-eight patients (23.5%) returned for their DST results. Based on DST, treatment was modified in four patients (3.4%).", "long_answer": "Using solid culture, 150 cultures need to be tested for one treatment modification and 30 for DST. The cost of the widespread application of culture will need to be balanced against its impact on treatment decisions in India.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking whether solid culture for tuberculosis influences clinical decision making in India, specifically in the context of a study done at an academic tertiary hospital in Southern India. Let me go through the provided context carefully.\n\nFirst, I need to recall what solid culture means in TB diagnostics. Solid culture here refers to Löwenstein-Jensen (LJ) medium, which is a standard solid culture medium used for TB detection. The study is looking at how this culture impacts clinical decisions—like when treatment starts, whether patients stop treatment, and how drug susceptibility testing (DST) results affect decisions.\n\nLooking at the results: 82.7% of culture-positive patients (124 out of 150) started treatment before getting their culture results. That's a significant number. Only 1.3% (2 patients) started treatment based on positive culture results. The culture-negative group had 23.3% starting treatment before results, which is lower than the positive group. \n\nHmm, the key point here is that most patients started treatment before culture results were available. The study mentions that 101 patients (33.7%) returned for results, meaning they didn't start treatment immediately. But the fact that 82.7% started treatment prior to culture results suggests that solid culture results aren't influencing the initial treatment decisions much. In fact, the data shows that treatment initiation is happening before culture is available, so the culture results themselves aren't changing the decision to start treatment.\n\nThen there's the DST part. They did DST on 79.3% of positive cultures. Out of those, 25.2% showed resistance, 6.7% MDR, and 0.84% XDR. But only 23.5% returned for DST results, and treatment was modified in just 4 patients (3.4%). That's a very small percentage. So even when DST results are available, they don't lead to many changes in treatment. \n\nThe study's objective was to see if solid culture (LJ) influences clinical decisions. But the results indicate that patients are starting treatment before culture results come in, so the culture results aren't affecting the initial decision. The DST results also don't cause many treatment modifications. \n\nI should consider why this might be. In India, TB treatment guidelines often recommend starting treatment immediately based on clinical suspicion, especially in resource-limited settings where culture takes time. So the high rate of treatment initiation", "visible_output": "Solid culture results do not significantly influence initial treatment decisions, as 82.7% of culture-positive patients started treatment before culture results were available.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "Solid culture results do not significantly influence initial treatment decisions, as 82.7% of culture-positive patients started treatment before culture results were available.  \nFinal answer: no"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_12", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 25480629, "prompt": "Question: Residual fundus or neofundus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: is fundectomy safe and effective as revision surgery?\n\nContext:\nINTRODUCTION: Up to 30 % of patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy require revision surgery for inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and/or the development of severe upper gastrointestinal symptoms. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic fundectomy (LF) in cases of a residual fundus/neofundus development regarding GERD symptoms.\nMETHODS: The study group comprised 19 patients (17 female; mean BMI 35.4 kg/m(2)) divided into 2 groups. Group A (n = 10) patients with severe GERD and evidence of residual fundus/neofundus, Hiatal hernia with good results in terms of weight loss. Group B (n = 9) patients with severe GERD, a residual fundus/neofundus, inadequate weight loss or weight regain. Fundectomy was indicated when a residual fundus/neofundus was associated with severe GERD symptoms. The presence of a residual fundus/neofundus was assessed by a barium swallow and/or multislice computed tomography.\nRESULTS: No mortality or intra-operative complications occurred. Five postoperative complications occurred: 2 cases of bleeding, 1 mid-gastric stenosis and 2 leaks (10.5 %). All patients experienced improvements in their GERD symptoms and stopped PPI treatment. Group B exhibited an additional %EWL of 53.4 % at 24 months.", "question": "Residual fundus or neofundus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: is fundectomy safe and effective as revision surgery?", "context": "INTRODUCTION: Up to 30 % of patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy require revision surgery for inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and/or the development of severe upper gastrointestinal symptoms. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic fundectomy (LF) in cases of a residual fundus/neofundus development regarding GERD symptoms.\nMETHODS: The study group comprised 19 patients (17 female; mean BMI 35.4 kg/m(2)) divided into 2 groups. Group A (n = 10) patients with severe GERD and evidence of residual fundus/neofundus, Hiatal hernia with good results in terms of weight loss. Group B (n = 9) patients with severe GERD, a residual fundus/neofundus, inadequate weight loss or weight regain. Fundectomy was indicated when a residual fundus/neofundus was associated with severe GERD symptoms. The presence of a residual fundus/neofundus was assessed by a barium swallow and/or multislice computed tomography.\nRESULTS: No mortality or intra-operative complications occurred. Five postoperative complications occurred: 2 cases of bleeding, 1 mid-gastric stenosis and 2 leaks (10.5 %). All patients experienced improvements in their GERD symptoms and stopped PPI treatment. Group B exhibited an additional %EWL of 53.4 % at 24 months.", "long_answer": "LF and cruroplasty is feasible and has good results in terms of GERD symptoms control and additional weight loss. The high rate of postoperative complications observed in this series remains a matter of concern. A re-sleeve procedure might be considered as an alternative to RYGB/DS conversion restricted to selected patients.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking about residual fundus or neofundus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and whether fundectomy is safe and effective as revision surgery. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a retrospective study with 19 patients divided into two groups: Group A (10 patients) with severe GERD and residual fundus/neofundus, and Group B (9 patients) with similar issues but also inadequate weight loss or regain. The study found no mortality or intra-op complications, five post-op complications (10.5%), and all patients improved GERD symptoms and stopped PPIs. Group B had an additional 53.4% weight loss at 24 months.\n\nFirst, I need to verify the key points from the study. The main question is about safety and efficacy of fundectomy for this specific issue. The study shows no deaths or major intra-op complications, which is good. The post-op complications were minor: bleeding, stenosis, leaks. The fact that all patients improved GERD symptoms is crucial because that's the primary indication—severe GERD due to residual fundus. Also, Group B's additional weight loss suggests fundectomy might help with weight loss too, not just GERD.\n\nWait, the user might be a medical professional, maybe a surgeon or a gastroenterologist, considering revision surgery options. They probably want to know if fundectomy is a viable option for their patients who have persistent GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. The deeper need here could be understanding if they should perform fundectomy without risking complications, especially since some patients might have had weight regain or inadequate loss.\n\nI should check if the study's findings are robust. It's a retrospective study, so limitations like selection bias and small sample size (n=19) are important. The authors mention barium swallow and CT for assessing residual fundus, which is standard. But they didn't have a control group, so it's hard to isolate fundectomy's effect from other factors. Also, Group B had weight issues, so the weight loss improvement might be due to the fundectomy itself or other factors like continued diet adherence.\n\nThe user might also be concerned about the safety profile. The complications were low (10.5%), but leaks and stenosis are serious. They need to know if the risks are acceptable compared to other revisions like redo sleeve or gastric bypass. The study says all patients stopped PPIs, which is a big plus for GER", "visible_output": "Laparoscopic fundectomy is safe and effective for patients with residual neofundus and severe GERD, with significant symptom improvement and weight loss in the revision cohort.  \nFinal answer: yes", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "yes", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "Laparoscopic fundectomy is safe and effective for patients with residual neofundus and severe GERD, with significant symptom improvement and weight loss in the revision cohort.  \nFinal answer: yes"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_13", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 22825590, "prompt": "Question: Are behavioural risk factors to be blamed for the conversion from optimal blood pressure to hypertensive status in Black South Africans?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: Longitudinal cohort studies in sub-Saharan Africa are urgently needed to understand cardiovascular disease development. We, therefore, explored health behaviours and conventional risk factors of African individuals with optimal blood pressure (BP) (≤ 120/80 mm Hg), and their 5-year prediction for the development of hypertension.\nMETHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study in the North West Province, South Africa, started in 2005 and included African volunteers (n = 1994; aged>30 years) from a sample of 6000 randomly selected households in rural and urban areas.\nRESULTS: At baseline, 48% of the participants were hypertensive (≥ 140/90 mmHg). Those with optimal BP (n = 478) were followed at a success rate of 70% for 5 years (213 normotensive, 68 hypertensive, 57 deceased). Africans that became hypertensive smoked more than the normotensive individuals (68.2% vs 49.8%), and they also had a greater waist circumference [ratio of geometric means of 0.94 cm (95% CI: 0.86-0.99)] and greater amount of γ-glutamyltransferase [0.74 U/l (95% CI: 0.62-0.88)]at baseline. The 5-year change in BP was independently explained by baseline γ-glutamyltransferase [R(2) = 0.23, β = 0.13 U/l (95% CI: 0.01-0.19)]. Alcohol intake also predicted central systolic BP and carotid cross-sectional wall area (CSWA) at follow-up. Waist circumference was another predictor of BP changes [β = 0.18 cm (95% CI: 0.05-0.24)]and CSWA. HIV infection was inversely associated with increased BP.", "question": "Are behavioural risk factors to be blamed for the conversion from optimal blood pressure to hypertensive status in Black South Africans?", "context": "BACKGROUND: Longitudinal cohort studies in sub-Saharan Africa are urgently needed to understand cardiovascular disease development. We, therefore, explored health behaviours and conventional risk factors of African individuals with optimal blood pressure (BP) (≤ 120/80 mm Hg), and their 5-year prediction for the development of hypertension.\nMETHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study in the North West Province, South Africa, started in 2005 and included African volunteers (n = 1994; aged>30 years) from a sample of 6000 randomly selected households in rural and urban areas.\nRESULTS: At baseline, 48% of the participants were hypertensive (≥ 140/90 mmHg). Those with optimal BP (n = 478) were followed at a success rate of 70% for 5 years (213 normotensive, 68 hypertensive, 57 deceased). Africans that became hypertensive smoked more than the normotensive individuals (68.2% vs 49.8%), and they also had a greater waist circumference [ratio of geometric means of 0.94 cm (95% CI: 0.86-0.99)] and greater amount of γ-glutamyltransferase [0.74 U/l (95% CI: 0.62-0.88)]at baseline. The 5-year change in BP was independently explained by baseline γ-glutamyltransferase [R(2) = 0.23, β = 0.13 U/l (95% CI: 0.01-0.19)]. Alcohol intake also predicted central systolic BP and carotid cross-sectional wall area (CSWA) at follow-up. Waist circumference was another predictor of BP changes [β = 0.18 cm (95% CI: 0.05-0.24)]and CSWA. HIV infection was inversely associated with increased BP.", "long_answer": "During the 5 years, 24% of Africans with optimal BP developed hypertension. The surge in hypertension in Africa is largely explained by modifiable risk factors. Public health strategies should focus aggressively on lifestyle to prevent a catastrophic burden on the national health system.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking whether behavioral risk factors are to be blamed for the conversion from optimal blood pressure to hypertensive status in Black South Africans. Let me start by understanding the context provided. The study is from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study in South Africa. They looked at Black South Africans with optimal BP (≤120/80 mmHg) and followed them for five years to see who developed hypertension.\n\nFirst, I need to recall the key findings from the results section. The study found that those who became hypertensive had higher smoking rates (68.2% vs 49.8%), larger waist circumference (geometric mean ratio 0.94), and higher γ-glutamyltransferase (0.74 U/l). Also, alcohol intake predicted central systolic BP and carotid wall area. Waist circumference was a predictor for BP changes. HIV infection was inversely associated with increased BP, which is interesting but maybe not directly relevant here.\n\nThe user's question is about behavioral risk factors being \"blamed.\" That's a bit strong. Blaming implies responsibility, but in public health, we usually talk about modifiable risks without assigning blame. I should be careful not to use judgmental language. The study shows associations, not causation. So, I need to clarify that correlation isn't causation.\n\nLooking at the behavioral factors mentioned: smoking, alcohol, physical activity (though not explicitly stated here), diet. The study highlights smoking, waist circumference (which relates to obesity, a behavioral factor like diet and physical inactivity), and alcohol. γ-glutamyltransferase is a liver enzyme, often linked to alcohol consumption and liver disease, so that's a marker for alcohol-related damage. \n\nThe key point is that the study identified these as predictors. For example, baseline smoking was higher in those who developed hypertension. Similarly, waist circumference and γ-glutamyltransferase were independent predictors. But the question is whether these behavioral factors are \"to be blamed.\" The answer should emphasize that while these factors are significant predictors, they're not the sole cause. There are other factors like genetics, socioeconomic conditions, healthcare access, which might play roles too.\n\nAlso, the study is from South Africa, specifically Black South Africans. The context mentions the population is African, so cultural and socioeconomic factors specific to this group should be considered. For instance, in some communities, high salt intake due to dietary habits or limited access to fresh food might contribute.", "visible_output": "Behavioral factors such as smoking, waist circumference, and alcohol intake were independently associated with the development of hypertension in Black South Africans with optimal blood pressure at baseline.  \nFinal answer: maybe", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "maybe", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "Behavioral factors such as smoking, waist circumference, and alcohol intake were independently associated with the development of hypertension in Black South Africans with optimal blood pressure at baseline.  \nFinal answer: maybe"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_14", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 18274917, "prompt": "Question: Prognosis of low-tone sudden deafness - does it inevitably progress to Meniere's disease?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVES: To investigate whether low-tone SD was a precursor of Meniere's disease and whether patients with low-tone SD suffered from endolymphatic hydrops.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective case review in the university hospital. A total of 184 patients with low-tone SD were divided into two groups with single and recurrent episodes. The progress, follow-up audiograms, and ECochG results of the patients were reviewed and compared with those of patients with high-tone SD and Meniere's disease.\nRESULTS: In all, 83 of 177 patients with low-tone SD unaccompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; 15 of the 83 developed vertiginous attacks. The remaining 94 patients had a single episode. Three of the seven patients with low-tone SD accompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; two of the three were subsequently confirmed to have Meniere's disease. The other four had a single episode. No difference in rate of progress from SD to Meniere's disease was observed among the low-tone and the high-tone SD groups. The average -SP/AP of each group with a single episode is smaller than that of other groups with recurrent episodes and Meniere's disease.", "question": "Prognosis of low-tone sudden deafness - does it inevitably progress to Meniere's disease?", "context": "OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether low-tone SD was a precursor of Meniere's disease and whether patients with low-tone SD suffered from endolymphatic hydrops.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective case review in the university hospital. A total of 184 patients with low-tone SD were divided into two groups with single and recurrent episodes. The progress, follow-up audiograms, and ECochG results of the patients were reviewed and compared with those of patients with high-tone SD and Meniere's disease.\nRESULTS: In all, 83 of 177 patients with low-tone SD unaccompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; 15 of the 83 developed vertiginous attacks. The remaining 94 patients had a single episode. Three of the seven patients with low-tone SD accompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; two of the three were subsequently confirmed to have Meniere's disease. The other four had a single episode. No difference in rate of progress from SD to Meniere's disease was observed among the low-tone and the high-tone SD groups. The average -SP/AP of each group with a single episode is smaller than that of other groups with recurrent episodes and Meniere's disease.", "long_answer": "We conclude that not all low-tone sudden deafness (SD) patients suffered from endolymphatic hydrops even if they had vertigo attack at the onset and that electrocochleography (ECochG) was a useful prognostic tool.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking about the prognosis of low-tone sudden deafness (SD) and whether it inevitably progresses to Meniere's disease. Let me start by recalling the context they provided. They mentioned a study with 184 patients divided into groups with single and recurrent episodes of low-tone SD. The key points from the results are that out of 83 patients without vertigo who had recurrent hearing loss, 15 developed vertigo. Among the 7 with vertigo, 3 had recurrent hearing loss, and 2 of those were later diagnosed with Meniere's. The study also notes no difference in progression to Meniere's between low-tone and high-tone SD groups.\n\nHmm, the user might be a patient or a caregiver who's worried after being diagnosed with low-tone SD. They're probably concerned about developing Meniere's and what the future holds. Their main question is if it's inevitable, but they might also be anxious about the progression and whether they need specific treatments.\n\nI should check the study's findings carefully. The study shows that only 2 out of 3 patients with recurrent hearing loss and vertigo developed Meniere's. That's a small number, so it's not inevitable. Also, the study emphasizes that low-tone SD without vertigo (the majority) doesn't progress to Meniere's. The key point here is that Meniere's disease typically involves vertigo, tinnitus, hearing loss, and ear fullness, whereas low-tone SD is a sudden hearing loss without those symptoms initially.\n\nWait, the user might not realize that Meniere's is a specific condition with distinct symptoms. They might confuse sudden hearing loss with Meniere's progression. Clarifying the symptoms could help. Also, the study mentions that the average SP/AP ratio is smaller in single-episode cases, which might indicate less severe or different pathology.\n\nThe user's deeper need is likely reassurance. They want to know if their condition will get worse and if they should take action. The answer should stress that low-tone SD doesn't inevitably lead to Meniere's. Most cases are single episodes and don't progress. Only a minority with recurrent episodes and vertigo might develop Meniere's, but even then, it's not certain.\n\nI should also mention that the study didn't find a difference between low-tone and high-tone SD in progression to Meniere's. That's important because some might think low-tone is more dangerous. But the data shows otherwise. The recurrence rate is higher in low-tone SD, but", "visible_output": "Only 2 out of 3 patients with recurrent low-tone SD and vertigo progressed to Meniere's disease.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "Only 2 out of 3 patients with recurrent low-tone SD and vertigo progressed to Meniere's disease.  \nFinal answer: no"}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_15", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 15280782, "prompt": "Question: Is unsafe sexual behaviour increasing among HIV-infected individuals?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The number of new diagnoses of HIV infection is rising in the northwestern hemisphere and it is becoming increasingly important to understand the mechanisms behind this trend.\nOBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether reported unsafe sexual behaviour among HIV- infected individuals is changing over time.\nDESIGN: Participants in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study were asked about their sexual practices every 6 months for 3 years during regular follow-up of the cohort beginning on 1 April 2000.\nMETHODS: : Logistic regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations assuming a constant correlation between responses from the same individual.\nRESULTS: At least one sexual behaviour questionnaire was obtained for 6545 HIV-infected individuals and the median number of questionnaires completed per individual was five. There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sex over time in this population [odds ratio (OR), 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-1.05]. Females (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.19-1.60), 15-30 year olds (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47), those with HIV-positive partners (OR, 12.58; 95% CI, 10.84-14.07) and those with occasional partners (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.87-3.67) were more likely to report unsafe sex. There was no evidence of a response bias over time, but individuals were less willing to leave questions about their sexual behaviour unanswered or ambiguous (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97).", "question": "Is unsafe sexual behaviour increasing among HIV-infected individuals?", "context": "BACKGROUND: The number of new diagnoses of HIV infection is rising in the northwestern hemisphere and it is becoming increasingly important to understand the mechanisms behind this trend.\nOBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether reported unsafe sexual behaviour among HIV- infected individuals is changing over time.\nDESIGN: Participants in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study were asked about their sexual practices every 6 months for 3 years during regular follow-up of the cohort beginning on 1 April 2000.\nMETHODS: : Logistic regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations assuming a constant correlation between responses from the same individual.\nRESULTS: At least one sexual behaviour questionnaire was obtained for 6545 HIV-infected individuals and the median number of questionnaires completed per individual was five. There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sex over time in this population [odds ratio (OR), 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-1.05]. Females (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.19-1.60), 15-30 year olds (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47), those with HIV-positive partners (OR, 12.58; 95% CI, 10.84-14.07) and those with occasional partners (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.87-3.67) were more likely to report unsafe sex. There was no evidence of a response bias over time, but individuals were less willing to leave questions about their sexual behaviour unanswered or ambiguous (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97).", "long_answer": "There was no evidence of a trend in unsafe sex behaviour over time. However, several subgroups were identified as being more likely to report unsafe sex and should be targeted for specific interventions.", "model_ref": "Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507", "raw_output": "Okay, the user is asking if unsafe sexual behavior is increasing among HIV-infected individuals. Let me look at the context they provided. \n\nHmm, the study is from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, tracking people every six months for three years starting in 2000. They collected data on sexual practices. The main finding says there was no evidence of an increase in unsafe sex over time. The odds ratio is 1.0 with a confidence interval of 0.96 to 1.05. That's a bit tricky because the confidence interval includes 1, which means statistically, there's no significant change.\n\nWait, the user might be concerned about rising HIV cases in the northwestern hemisphere. The background mentions new diagnoses are rising there, but the study specifically looks at HIV-infected individuals, not the general population. So even if new infections are up, this study is about people already infected. That's an important distinction. The user might be conflating the two.\n\nAlso, the study found certain groups had higher rates of unsafe sex: females, younger people (15-30), those with HIV-positive partners, and those with occasional partners. But the key point is that over time, there wasn't an increase. The response bias part says people were less likely to leave questions unanswered, which might mean they're being more honest now, but the study adjusted for that.\n\nThe user's deeper need might be understanding if current HIV trends are due to more risky behavior among infected people. But the study shows no increase in unsafe sex among the infected cohort. Maybe they're worried about transmission rates increasing because of this? But the study doesn't address transmission—just self-reported unsafe behavior. \n\nI should clarify that the study doesn't show an increase in unsafe sex over time among those already infected. The rising new diagnoses in the region could be from other factors, like better testing or different populations. The user might need to know that while unsafe behavior isn't increasing in this group, other factors could be driving new infections. \n\nAlso, the confidence interval being close to 1 is important. Some might misinterpret the CI as \"no change,\" but technically, it's not statistically significant. The study says \"no evidence of an increase,\" so the answer is no. \n\nI should make sure not to confuse this with the general population. The question is specifically about HIV-infected individuals. The study's population is already infected, so their behavior trends are what matter here. \n\nThe user might be a student", "visible_output": "There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sexual behavior among HIV-infected individuals over time.  \nFinal answer: no", "has_think_close": false, "predicted_answer": "no", "sampler": {"temperature": 0.6, "top_p": 0.95, "top_k": 20, "min_p": 0.0, "max_new_tokens": {"aime": 4096, "pubmedqa": 512}, "effective_max_new_tokens": 512}, "fallback_output": "There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sexual behavior among HIV-infected individuals over time.  \nFinal answer: no"}

runs/20260322T021329Z/iteration_01_pubmedqa_train_generation/pubmedqa_thinking_outputs.request_params.json

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+{
+  "temperature": 0.6,
+  "top_p": 0.95,
+  "top_k": 20,
+  "min_p": 0.0,
+  "max_new_tokens": {
+    "aime": 4096,
+    "pubmedqa": 512
+  }
+}

runs/20260322T021329Z/iteration_01_pubmedqa_train_generation/pubmedqa_thinking_outputs.request_rows.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_01", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 16361634, "prompt": "Question: Women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary: do they have Lynch syndrome?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; HNPCC) is an autosomal-dominant cancer predisposition syndrome that increases risk for multiple cancers, including colon, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. Revised Bethesda Criteria recommend that patients with two HNPCC-associated cancers undergo molecular evaluation to determine whether they have a mismatch repair (MMR) defect associated with HNPCC. The purpose of our study was to determine the likelihood of MMR defects (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1) in women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2004, 102 women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers were identified; 59 patients had tumor blocks available for analysis. Patients were divided into risk groups based on family history: high (met Amsterdam criteria), medium (personal history or first-degree relative with an HNPCC-associated cancer), and low (all others). Protein expression for MSH2, MSH6, and MLH1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Microsatellite instability and MLH1 promoter methylation analyses were performed on a subset of cases.\nRESULTS: Median age was 50 years. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria for HNPCC. Five additional patients, all medium-risk, had molecular findings consistent with a germline mutation of either MSH2 or MLH1. None of the low-risk patients had molecular results consistent with a germline mutation.", "question": "Women with synchronous primary cancers of the endometrium and ovary: do they have Lynch syndrome?", "context": "PURPOSE: Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer; HNPCC) is an autosomal-dominant cancer predisposition syndrome that increases risk for multiple cancers, including colon, endometrial, and ovarian cancer. Revised Bethesda Criteria recommend that patients with two HNPCC-associated cancers undergo molecular evaluation to determine whether they have a mismatch repair (MMR) defect associated with HNPCC. The purpose of our study was to determine the likelihood of MMR defects (MSH2, MSH6, MLH1) in women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2004, 102 women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers were identified; 59 patients had tumor blocks available for analysis. Patients were divided into risk groups based on family history: high (met Amsterdam criteria), medium (personal history or first-degree relative with an HNPCC-associated cancer), and low (all others). Protein expression for MSH2, MSH6, and MLH1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Microsatellite instability and MLH1 promoter methylation analyses were performed on a subset of cases.\nRESULTS: Median age was 50 years. Two patients met Amsterdam criteria for HNPCC. Five additional patients, all medium-risk, had molecular findings consistent with a germline mutation of either MSH2 or MLH1. None of the low-risk patients had molecular results consistent with a germline mutation.", "long_answer": "Overall, 7% of women in our cohort met either clinical or molecular criteria for Lynch syndrome. All of these women had a prior history or a first-degree relative with an HNPCC-associated cancer. Limiting genetic evaluation to women with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer who have a family history suggestive of HNPCC may appropriately identify women with Lynch syndrome."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_02", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 27818079, "prompt": "Question: Is the Retromandibular Transparotid Approach a Reliable Option for the Surgical Treatment of Condylar Fractures?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: This study evaluated the outcomes and complications of the surgical treatment of condylar fractures by the retromandibular transparotid approach. The authors hypothesized that such an approach would be safe and reliable for the treatment of most condylar fractures.\nMATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients who underwent surgical reduction of a condylar fracture from January 2012 to December 2014 at the Clinic of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Hospital of Verona (Verona, Italy) was performed. Inclusion criteria were having undergone surgical treatment of condylar fractures with a retromandibular transparotid approach and the availability of computed tomograms of the preoperative and postoperative facial skeleton with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Static and dynamic occlusal function, temporomandibular joint health status, presence of neurologic impairments, and esthetic outcomes were evaluated in all patients.\nRESULTS: The sample was composed of 25 patients. Preinjury occlusion and temporomandibular joint health were restored in most patients. Esthetic outcomes were deemed satisfactory by clinicians and patients. Neither permanent neurologic impairments nor major postoperative complications were observed.", "question": "Is the Retromandibular Transparotid Approach a Reliable Option for the Surgical Treatment of Condylar Fractures?", "context": "PURPOSE: This study evaluated the outcomes and complications of the surgical treatment of condylar fractures by the retromandibular transparotid approach. The authors hypothesized that such an approach would be safe and reliable for the treatment of most condylar fractures.\nMATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients who underwent surgical reduction of a condylar fracture from January 2012 to December 2014 at the Clinic of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University Hospital of Verona (Verona, Italy) was performed. Inclusion criteria were having undergone surgical treatment of condylar fractures with a retromandibular transparotid approach and the availability of computed tomograms of the preoperative and postoperative facial skeleton with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Static and dynamic occlusal function, temporomandibular joint health status, presence of neurologic impairments, and esthetic outcomes were evaluated in all patients.\nRESULTS: The sample was composed of 25 patients. Preinjury occlusion and temporomandibular joint health were restored in most patients. Esthetic outcomes were deemed satisfactory by clinicians and patients. Neither permanent neurologic impairments nor major postoperative complications were observed.", "long_answer": "According to the results of the present study, the retromandibular transparotid approach is a viable and safe approach for the surgical treatment of condylar fractures."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_03", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 21166749, "prompt": "Question: Is patient outcome compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVE: • Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) remains controversial in terms of oncologic outcomes, especially during the initial experience. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of initial experience of robotic cystectomy programs on oncologic outcomes and overall survival.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: • Utilizing a prospectively maintained, single institution robotic cystectomy database, we identified 164 consecutive patients who underwent RARC since November 2005. • After stratification by age group, gender, pathologic T stage, lymph node status, surgical margin status, and sequential case number; we used chi-squared analyses to correlate sequential case number to operative time, surgical blood loss, lymph node yield, and surgical margin status. • We also addressed the relationship between complications and sequential case number. We then utilized Cox proportional hazard modeling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to correlate variables to overall mortality.\nRESULTS: • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with increased incidence of complications, surgical blood loss, or positive surgical margins (P= 0.780, P= 0.548, P= 0.545). Case number was, however, significantly associated with shorter operative time and mean number of lymph nodes retrieved (P<0.001, P<0.001). • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with survival; however, tumour stage, the presence of lymph node metastases, and positive surgical margins were significantly associated with death. • Although being the largest of its kind, this was a small study with short follow-up when compared to open cystectomy series.", "question": "Is patient outcome compromised during the initial experience with robot-assisted radical cystectomy?", "context": "OBJECTIVE: • Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) remains controversial in terms of oncologic outcomes, especially during the initial experience. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of initial experience of robotic cystectomy programs on oncologic outcomes and overall survival.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: • Utilizing a prospectively maintained, single institution robotic cystectomy database, we identified 164 consecutive patients who underwent RARC since November 2005. • After stratification by age group, gender, pathologic T stage, lymph node status, surgical margin status, and sequential case number; we used chi-squared analyses to correlate sequential case number to operative time, surgical blood loss, lymph node yield, and surgical margin status. • We also addressed the relationship between complications and sequential case number. We then utilized Cox proportional hazard modeling and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to correlate variables to overall mortality.\nRESULTS: • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with increased incidence of complications, surgical blood loss, or positive surgical margins (P= 0.780, P= 0.548, P= 0.545). Case number was, however, significantly associated with shorter operative time and mean number of lymph nodes retrieved (P<0.001, P<0.001). • Sequential case number was not significantly associated with survival; however, tumour stage, the presence of lymph node metastases, and positive surgical margins were significantly associated with death. • Although being the largest of its kind, this was a small study with short follow-up when compared to open cystectomy series.", "long_answer": "• Initial experience with RARC did not affect the incidence of positive surgical margins, operative/postoperative complications, or overall survival in a single-institution series."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_04", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 15388567, "prompt": "Question: Are sports medicine journals relevant and applicable to practitioners and athletes?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence base of sports medicine research and assess how relevant and applicable it is to everyday practice.\nMETHODS: Original research articles, short reports, and case reports published in four major sport and exercise medicine journals were studied and classified according to the main topic of study and type of subjects used.\nRESULTS: The most common topic was sports science, and very few studies related to the treatment of injuries and medical conditions. The majority of published articles used healthy subjects sampled from the sedentary population, and few studies have been carried out on injured participants.", "question": "Are sports medicine journals relevant and applicable to practitioners and athletes?", "context": "OBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence base of sports medicine research and assess how relevant and applicable it is to everyday practice.\nMETHODS: Original research articles, short reports, and case reports published in four major sport and exercise medicine journals were studied and classified according to the main topic of study and type of subjects used.\nRESULTS: The most common topic was sports science, and very few studies related to the treatment of injuries and medical conditions. The majority of published articles used healthy subjects sampled from the sedentary population, and few studies have been carried out on injured participants.", "long_answer": "There is a dearth of studies addressing diagnostic and treatment interventions in the sports medicine literature. The evidence base for sports medicine must continue to increase in terms of volume and quality."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_05", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 23359100, "prompt": "Question: Is etoricoxib effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty?\n\nContext:\nPURPOSE: Heterotopic ossification is a common complication after total hip arthroplasty. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to prevent heterotopic ossifications effectively, however gastrointestinal complaints are reported frequently. In this study, we investigated whether etoricoxib, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor that produces fewer gastrointestinal side effects, is an effective alternative for the prevention of heterotopic ossification.\nMETHODS: We investigated the effectiveness of oral etoricoxib 90 mg for seven days in a prospective two-stage study design for phase-2 clinical trials in a small sample of patients (n = 42). A cemented primary total hip arthroplasty was implanted for osteoarthritis. Six months after surgery, heterotopic ossification was determined on anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using the Brooker classification.\nRESULTS: No heterotopic ossification was found in 62 % of the patients that took etoricoxib; 31 % of the patients had Brooker grade 1 and 7 % Brooker grade 2 ossification.", "question": "Is etoricoxib effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty?", "context": "PURPOSE: Heterotopic ossification is a common complication after total hip arthroplasty. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to prevent heterotopic ossifications effectively, however gastrointestinal complaints are reported frequently. In this study, we investigated whether etoricoxib, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor that produces fewer gastrointestinal side effects, is an effective alternative for the prevention of heterotopic ossification.\nMETHODS: We investigated the effectiveness of oral etoricoxib 90 mg for seven days in a prospective two-stage study design for phase-2 clinical trials in a small sample of patients (n = 42). A cemented primary total hip arthroplasty was implanted for osteoarthritis. Six months after surgery, heterotopic ossification was determined on anteroposterior pelvic radiographs using the Brooker classification.\nRESULTS: No heterotopic ossification was found in 62 % of the patients that took etoricoxib; 31 % of the patients had Brooker grade 1 and 7 % Brooker grade 2 ossification.", "long_answer": "Etoricoxib seems effective in preventing heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty. This finding further supports the use of COX-2 inhibitors for the prevention of heterotopic ossification following total hip arthroplasty."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_06", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 25810292, "prompt": "Question: Is minimally invasive mitral valve repair with artificial chords reproducible and applicable in routine surgery?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVES: Traditional resectional techniques and chordal transfer are difficult to apply in video-assisted mitral valve repair. Using artificial chords appears easier in this setting. The purpose of this study was to review the effectiveness and reproducibility of neochordal repair as a routine approach to minimally invasive mitral repair, and to assess the stability of neochord implantation using the figure-of-eight suture without pledgets in this setting.\nMETHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve repair from 2008 to 2013. The primary endpoints were recurrent mitral regurgitation and reoperation.\nRESULTS: A total of 426 consecutive patients were included during the study period, with a mean age of 55 ± 18 years. Neochords were used in all patients, and in association with leaflet resection in 47 patients. One patient was not repairable and underwent valve replacement (repair rate, 99.8%). Fifteen patients had Grade I (3.5%) regurgitation, whereas the remainder had none. Patients were fast-tracked, with 25% extubated in the operation theatre and the remainder within 6 h. There were 5 deaths within 30 days (1.2%). Follow-up ranged 3-60 months, during which all of the patients remained with no or trace mitral regurgitation. No de-insertion or rupture of any neochords was found, and no patients required a reoperation.", "question": "Is minimally invasive mitral valve repair with artificial chords reproducible and applicable in routine surgery?", "context": "OBJECTIVES: Traditional resectional techniques and chordal transfer are difficult to apply in video-assisted mitral valve repair. Using artificial chords appears easier in this setting. The purpose of this study was to review the effectiveness and reproducibility of neochordal repair as a routine approach to minimally invasive mitral repair, and to assess the stability of neochord implantation using the figure-of-eight suture without pledgets in this setting.\nMETHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve repair from 2008 to 2013. The primary endpoints were recurrent mitral regurgitation and reoperation.\nRESULTS: A total of 426 consecutive patients were included during the study period, with a mean age of 55 ± 18 years. Neochords were used in all patients, and in association with leaflet resection in 47 patients. One patient was not repairable and underwent valve replacement (repair rate, 99.8%). Fifteen patients had Grade I (3.5%) regurgitation, whereas the remainder had none. Patients were fast-tracked, with 25% extubated in the operation theatre and the remainder within 6 h. There were 5 deaths within 30 days (1.2%). Follow-up ranged 3-60 months, during which all of the patients remained with no or trace mitral regurgitation. No de-insertion or rupture of any neochords was found, and no patients required a reoperation.", "long_answer": "Minimally invasive mitral valve repair using neochords provided a high rate of repair, reproducible results in a routine cardiac surgery setting and stable repair during follow-up. This has become our preferred technique for mitral valve surgery."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_07", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 17062225, "prompt": "Question: Thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair: is reimplantation of spinal cord arteries a waste of time?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The impact of different strategies for management of intercostal and lumbar arteries during repair of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAA/A) on the prevention of paraplegia remains poorly understood.\nMETHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEP) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) during TAA/A repair involving serial segmental artery sacrifice (October 2002 to December 2004) were reviewed.\nRESULTS: Operative mortality was 6%. The median intensive care unit stay was 2.5 days (IQ range: 1-4 days), and the median hospital stay 10.0 days (IQ range: 8-17 days). Potentials remained unchanged during the course of serial segmental artery sacrifice, or could be returned to baseline levels by anesthetic and blood pressure manipulation, in 99 of 100 cases. An average of 8.0 +/- 2.6 segmental artery pairs were sacrificed overall, with an average of 4.5 +/- 2.1 segmental pairs sacrificed between T7 and L1, where the artery of Adamkiewicz is presumed to arise. Postoperative paraplegia occurred in 2 patients. In 1, immediate paraplegia was precipitated by an intraoperative dissection, resulting in 6 hours of lower body ischemia. A second ambulatory patient had severe paraparesis albeit normal cerebral function after resuscitation from a respiratory arrest.", "question": "Thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair: is reimplantation of spinal cord arteries a waste of time?", "context": "BACKGROUND: The impact of different strategies for management of intercostal and lumbar arteries during repair of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAA/A) on the prevention of paraplegia remains poorly understood.\nMETHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEP) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) during TAA/A repair involving serial segmental artery sacrifice (October 2002 to December 2004) were reviewed.\nRESULTS: Operative mortality was 6%. The median intensive care unit stay was 2.5 days (IQ range: 1-4 days), and the median hospital stay 10.0 days (IQ range: 8-17 days). Potentials remained unchanged during the course of serial segmental artery sacrifice, or could be returned to baseline levels by anesthetic and blood pressure manipulation, in 99 of 100 cases. An average of 8.0 +/- 2.6 segmental artery pairs were sacrificed overall, with an average of 4.5 +/- 2.1 segmental pairs sacrificed between T7 and L1, where the artery of Adamkiewicz is presumed to arise. Postoperative paraplegia occurred in 2 patients. In 1, immediate paraplegia was precipitated by an intraoperative dissection, resulting in 6 hours of lower body ischemia. A second ambulatory patient had severe paraparesis albeit normal cerebral function after resuscitation from a respiratory arrest.", "long_answer": "With monitoring of MEP and SSEP, sacrifice--without reimplantation--of as many as 15 intercostal and lumbar arteries during TAA/A repair is safe, resulting in acceptably low rates of immediate and delayed paraplegia. This experience suggests that routine surgical implantation of segmental vessels is not indicated, and that, with evolving understanding of spinal cord perfusion, endovascular repair of the entire thoracic aorta should ultimately be possible without spinal cord injury."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_08", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 16249670, "prompt": "Question: Does the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia exist?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The placement of the superficial cervical plexus block has been the subject of controversy. Although the investing cervical fascia has been considered as an impenetrable barrier, clinically, the placement of the block deep or superficial to the fascia provides the same effective anesthesia. The underlying mechanism is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the three-dimensional organization of connective tissues in the anterior region of the neck.\nMETHODS: Using a combination of dissection, E12 sheet plastination, and confocal microscopy, fascial structures in the anterior cervical triangle were examined in 10 adult human cadavers.\nRESULTS: In the upper cervical region, the fascia of strap muscles in the middle and the fasciae of the submandibular glands on both sides formed a dumbbell-like fascia sheet that had free lateral margins and did not continue with the sternocleidomastoid fascia. In the lower cervical region, no single connective tissue sheet extended directly between the sternocleidomastoid muscles. The fascial structure deep to platysma in the anterior cervical triangle comprised the strap fascia.", "question": "Does the investing layer of the deep cervical fascia exist?", "context": "BACKGROUND: The placement of the superficial cervical plexus block has been the subject of controversy. Although the investing cervical fascia has been considered as an impenetrable barrier, clinically, the placement of the block deep or superficial to the fascia provides the same effective anesthesia. The underlying mechanism is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the three-dimensional organization of connective tissues in the anterior region of the neck.\nMETHODS: Using a combination of dissection, E12 sheet plastination, and confocal microscopy, fascial structures in the anterior cervical triangle were examined in 10 adult human cadavers.\nRESULTS: In the upper cervical region, the fascia of strap muscles in the middle and the fasciae of the submandibular glands on both sides formed a dumbbell-like fascia sheet that had free lateral margins and did not continue with the sternocleidomastoid fascia. In the lower cervical region, no single connective tissue sheet extended directly between the sternocleidomastoid muscles. The fascial structure deep to platysma in the anterior cervical triangle comprised the strap fascia.", "long_answer": "This study provides anatomical evidence to indicate that the so-called investing cervical fascia does not exist in the anterior triangle of the neck. Taking the previous reports together, the authors' findings strongly suggest that deep potential spaces in the neck are directly continuous with the subcutaneous tissue."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_09", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 28011794, "prompt": "Question: Can Ambu self-inflating bag and Neopuff infant resuscitator provide adequate and safe manual inflations for infants up to 10 kg weight?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: Manual resuscitation devices for infants and newborns must be able to provide adequate ventilation in a safe and consistent manner across a wide range of patient sizes (0.5-10 kg) and differing clinical states. There are little comparative data assessing biomechanical performance of common infant manual resuscitation devices across the manufacturers' recommended operating weight ranges. We aimed to compare performance of the Ambu self-inflating bag (SIB) with the Neopuff T-piece resuscitator in three resuscitation models.\nMETHODS: Five experienced clinicians delivered targeted ventilation to three lung models differing in compliance, delivery pressures and inflation rates; Preterm (0.5 mL/cmH2O, 25/5 cmH2O, 60 per minute), Term (3 mL/cmH2O, 30/5 cmH2O, 40 per minute) and Infant (9 mL/cmH2O, 35/5 cmH2O, 30 per minute). The Neopuff was examined with three gas inflow rates (5 litres per minute (LPM), 10 LPM and 15 LPM) and the Ambu with no gas inflow.\nRESULTS: 3309 inflations were collected and analysed with analysis of variance for repeated measures. The Neopuff was unable to reach set peak inflation pressures and exhibited seriously elevated positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) with all inflow gas rates (p<0.001) in this infant model. The Ambu SIB accurately delivered targeted pressures in all three models.", "question": "Can Ambu self-inflating bag and Neopuff infant resuscitator provide adequate and safe manual inflations for infants up to 10 kg weight?", "context": "BACKGROUND: Manual resuscitation devices for infants and newborns must be able to provide adequate ventilation in a safe and consistent manner across a wide range of patient sizes (0.5-10 kg) and differing clinical states. There are little comparative data assessing biomechanical performance of common infant manual resuscitation devices across the manufacturers' recommended operating weight ranges. We aimed to compare performance of the Ambu self-inflating bag (SIB) with the Neopuff T-piece resuscitator in three resuscitation models.\nMETHODS: Five experienced clinicians delivered targeted ventilation to three lung models differing in compliance, delivery pressures and inflation rates; Preterm (0.5 mL/cmH2O, 25/5 cmH2O, 60 per minute), Term (3 mL/cmH2O, 30/5 cmH2O, 40 per minute) and Infant (9 mL/cmH2O, 35/5 cmH2O, 30 per minute). The Neopuff was examined with three gas inflow rates (5 litres per minute (LPM), 10 LPM and 15 LPM) and the Ambu with no gas inflow.\nRESULTS: 3309 inflations were collected and analysed with analysis of variance for repeated measures. The Neopuff was unable to reach set peak inflation pressures and exhibited seriously elevated positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) with all inflow gas rates (p<0.001) in this infant model. The Ambu SIB accurately delivered targeted pressures in all three models.", "long_answer": "The Ambu SIB was able to accurately deliver targeted pressures across all three models from preterm to infant. The Neopuff infant resuscitator was unable to deliver the targeted pressures in the infant model developing clinically significant levels of inadvertent PEEP which may pose risk during infant resuscitation."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_10", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 17578985, "prompt": "Question: Parasacral sciatic nerve block: does the elicited motor response predict the success rate?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the tibial and the peroneal evoked motor response with regard to efficacy of sciatic nerve block using the parasacral approach.\nMETHODS: Twenty-six ASA I-III patients scheduled for elective lower limb surgery were randomized to receive a parasacral sciatic block, using a nerve stimulator technique seeking either a tibial (n = 14) or peroneal (n = 12) motor response. After the evoked motor response was obtained, a solution of 10 mL 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine (actual final concentration of epinephrine, 1/160,000) was slowly injected through the needle. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed every 5 min for 30 min by an anesthesiologist blinded to the elicited motor response. If the block was not complete 30 min after injection of the local anesthetics, it was considered as failed, and general anesthesia was supplemented.\nRESULTS: Time to perform the block and level of minimal and maximal stimulation were not different between groups. The success rate of complete block was significantly higher in the tibial compared to the peroneal group (11 of 14 vs 2 of 12; P = 0.002).", "question": "Parasacral sciatic nerve block: does the elicited motor response predict the success rate?", "context": "BACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the tibial and the peroneal evoked motor response with regard to efficacy of sciatic nerve block using the parasacral approach.\nMETHODS: Twenty-six ASA I-III patients scheduled for elective lower limb surgery were randomized to receive a parasacral sciatic block, using a nerve stimulator technique seeking either a tibial (n = 14) or peroneal (n = 12) motor response. After the evoked motor response was obtained, a solution of 10 mL 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and 10 mL 0.75% ropivacaine (actual final concentration of epinephrine, 1/160,000) was slowly injected through the needle. Sensory and motor blocks were assessed every 5 min for 30 min by an anesthesiologist blinded to the elicited motor response. If the block was not complete 30 min after injection of the local anesthetics, it was considered as failed, and general anesthesia was supplemented.\nRESULTS: Time to perform the block and level of minimal and maximal stimulation were not different between groups. The success rate of complete block was significantly higher in the tibial compared to the peroneal group (11 of 14 vs 2 of 12; P = 0.002).", "long_answer": "Eliciting a tibial motor response predicts a higher success rate than eliciting a peroneal motor response with parasacral sciatic nerve block."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_11", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 21756515, "prompt": "Question: Does solid culture for tuberculosis influence clinical decision making in India?\n\nContext:\nSETTING: Medical units at an academic tertiary referral hospital in Southern India.\nOBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of solid culture on Löwenstein-Jensen medium on clinical decision making.\nDESIGN: In a retrospective review of 150 culture-positive and 150 culture-negative consecutively sampled tuberculosis (TB) suspects, treatment decisions were analysed at presentation, after the availability of culture detection results and after the availability of drug susceptibility testing (DST) culture results.\nRESULTS: A total of 124 (82.7%) culture-positive patients and 35 (23.3%) culture-negative patients started anti-tuberculosis treatment prior to receiving their culture results; 101 patients (33.7%) returned for their results; two (1.3%) initiated treatment based on positive culture and no culture-negative patients discontinued treatment. DST was performed on 119 (79.3%) positive cultures: 30 (25.2%) showed any resistance, eight (6.7%) showed multidrug resistance and one (0.84%) showed extensively drug-resistant TB. Twenty-eight patients (23.5%) returned for their DST results. Based on DST, treatment was modified in four patients (3.4%).", "question": "Does solid culture for tuberculosis influence clinical decision making in India?", "context": "SETTING: Medical units at an academic tertiary referral hospital in Southern India.\nOBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of solid culture on Löwenstein-Jensen medium on clinical decision making.\nDESIGN: In a retrospective review of 150 culture-positive and 150 culture-negative consecutively sampled tuberculosis (TB) suspects, treatment decisions were analysed at presentation, after the availability of culture detection results and after the availability of drug susceptibility testing (DST) culture results.\nRESULTS: A total of 124 (82.7%) culture-positive patients and 35 (23.3%) culture-negative patients started anti-tuberculosis treatment prior to receiving their culture results; 101 patients (33.7%) returned for their results; two (1.3%) initiated treatment based on positive culture and no culture-negative patients discontinued treatment. DST was performed on 119 (79.3%) positive cultures: 30 (25.2%) showed any resistance, eight (6.7%) showed multidrug resistance and one (0.84%) showed extensively drug-resistant TB. Twenty-eight patients (23.5%) returned for their DST results. Based on DST, treatment was modified in four patients (3.4%).", "long_answer": "Using solid culture, 150 cultures need to be tested for one treatment modification and 30 for DST. The cost of the widespread application of culture will need to be balanced against its impact on treatment decisions in India."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_12", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 25480629, "prompt": "Question: Residual fundus or neofundus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: is fundectomy safe and effective as revision surgery?\n\nContext:\nINTRODUCTION: Up to 30 % of patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy require revision surgery for inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and/or the development of severe upper gastrointestinal symptoms. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic fundectomy (LF) in cases of a residual fundus/neofundus development regarding GERD symptoms.\nMETHODS: The study group comprised 19 patients (17 female; mean BMI 35.4 kg/m(2)) divided into 2 groups. Group A (n = 10) patients with severe GERD and evidence of residual fundus/neofundus, Hiatal hernia with good results in terms of weight loss. Group B (n = 9) patients with severe GERD, a residual fundus/neofundus, inadequate weight loss or weight regain. Fundectomy was indicated when a residual fundus/neofundus was associated with severe GERD symptoms. The presence of a residual fundus/neofundus was assessed by a barium swallow and/or multislice computed tomography.\nRESULTS: No mortality or intra-operative complications occurred. Five postoperative complications occurred: 2 cases of bleeding, 1 mid-gastric stenosis and 2 leaks (10.5 %). All patients experienced improvements in their GERD symptoms and stopped PPI treatment. Group B exhibited an additional %EWL of 53.4 % at 24 months.", "question": "Residual fundus or neofundus after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: is fundectomy safe and effective as revision surgery?", "context": "INTRODUCTION: Up to 30 % of patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy require revision surgery for inadequate weight loss, weight regain, and/or the development of severe upper gastrointestinal symptoms. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic fundectomy (LF) in cases of a residual fundus/neofundus development regarding GERD symptoms.\nMETHODS: The study group comprised 19 patients (17 female; mean BMI 35.4 kg/m(2)) divided into 2 groups. Group A (n = 10) patients with severe GERD and evidence of residual fundus/neofundus, Hiatal hernia with good results in terms of weight loss. Group B (n = 9) patients with severe GERD, a residual fundus/neofundus, inadequate weight loss or weight regain. Fundectomy was indicated when a residual fundus/neofundus was associated with severe GERD symptoms. The presence of a residual fundus/neofundus was assessed by a barium swallow and/or multislice computed tomography.\nRESULTS: No mortality or intra-operative complications occurred. Five postoperative complications occurred: 2 cases of bleeding, 1 mid-gastric stenosis and 2 leaks (10.5 %). All patients experienced improvements in their GERD symptoms and stopped PPI treatment. Group B exhibited an additional %EWL of 53.4 % at 24 months.", "long_answer": "LF and cruroplasty is feasible and has good results in terms of GERD symptoms control and additional weight loss. The high rate of postoperative complications observed in this series remains a matter of concern. A re-sleeve procedure might be considered as an alternative to RYGB/DS conversion restricted to selected patients."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_13", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 22825590, "prompt": "Question: Are behavioural risk factors to be blamed for the conversion from optimal blood pressure to hypertensive status in Black South Africans?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: Longitudinal cohort studies in sub-Saharan Africa are urgently needed to understand cardiovascular disease development. We, therefore, explored health behaviours and conventional risk factors of African individuals with optimal blood pressure (BP) (≤ 120/80 mm Hg), and their 5-year prediction for the development of hypertension.\nMETHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study in the North West Province, South Africa, started in 2005 and included African volunteers (n = 1994; aged>30 years) from a sample of 6000 randomly selected households in rural and urban areas.\nRESULTS: At baseline, 48% of the participants were hypertensive (≥ 140/90 mmHg). Those with optimal BP (n = 478) were followed at a success rate of 70% for 5 years (213 normotensive, 68 hypertensive, 57 deceased). Africans that became hypertensive smoked more than the normotensive individuals (68.2% vs 49.8%), and they also had a greater waist circumference [ratio of geometric means of 0.94 cm (95% CI: 0.86-0.99)] and greater amount of γ-glutamyltransferase [0.74 U/l (95% CI: 0.62-0.88)]at baseline. The 5-year change in BP was independently explained by baseline γ-glutamyltransferase [R(2) = 0.23, β = 0.13 U/l (95% CI: 0.01-0.19)]. Alcohol intake also predicted central systolic BP and carotid cross-sectional wall area (CSWA) at follow-up. Waist circumference was another predictor of BP changes [β = 0.18 cm (95% CI: 0.05-0.24)]and CSWA. HIV infection was inversely associated with increased BP.", "question": "Are behavioural risk factors to be blamed for the conversion from optimal blood pressure to hypertensive status in Black South Africans?", "context": "BACKGROUND: Longitudinal cohort studies in sub-Saharan Africa are urgently needed to understand cardiovascular disease development. We, therefore, explored health behaviours and conventional risk factors of African individuals with optimal blood pressure (BP) (≤ 120/80 mm Hg), and their 5-year prediction for the development of hypertension.\nMETHODS: The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study in the North West Province, South Africa, started in 2005 and included African volunteers (n = 1994; aged>30 years) from a sample of 6000 randomly selected households in rural and urban areas.\nRESULTS: At baseline, 48% of the participants were hypertensive (≥ 140/90 mmHg). Those with optimal BP (n = 478) were followed at a success rate of 70% for 5 years (213 normotensive, 68 hypertensive, 57 deceased). Africans that became hypertensive smoked more than the normotensive individuals (68.2% vs 49.8%), and they also had a greater waist circumference [ratio of geometric means of 0.94 cm (95% CI: 0.86-0.99)] and greater amount of γ-glutamyltransferase [0.74 U/l (95% CI: 0.62-0.88)]at baseline. The 5-year change in BP was independently explained by baseline γ-glutamyltransferase [R(2) = 0.23, β = 0.13 U/l (95% CI: 0.01-0.19)]. Alcohol intake also predicted central systolic BP and carotid cross-sectional wall area (CSWA) at follow-up. Waist circumference was another predictor of BP changes [β = 0.18 cm (95% CI: 0.05-0.24)]and CSWA. HIV infection was inversely associated with increased BP.", "long_answer": "During the 5 years, 24% of Africans with optimal BP developed hypertension. The surge in hypertension in Africa is largely explained by modifiable risk factors. Public health strategies should focus aggressively on lifestyle to prevent a catastrophic burden on the national health system."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_14", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 18274917, "prompt": "Question: Prognosis of low-tone sudden deafness - does it inevitably progress to Meniere's disease?\n\nContext:\nOBJECTIVES: To investigate whether low-tone SD was a precursor of Meniere's disease and whether patients with low-tone SD suffered from endolymphatic hydrops.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective case review in the university hospital. A total of 184 patients with low-tone SD were divided into two groups with single and recurrent episodes. The progress, follow-up audiograms, and ECochG results of the patients were reviewed and compared with those of patients with high-tone SD and Meniere's disease.\nRESULTS: In all, 83 of 177 patients with low-tone SD unaccompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; 15 of the 83 developed vertiginous attacks. The remaining 94 patients had a single episode. Three of the seven patients with low-tone SD accompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; two of the three were subsequently confirmed to have Meniere's disease. The other four had a single episode. No difference in rate of progress from SD to Meniere's disease was observed among the low-tone and the high-tone SD groups. The average -SP/AP of each group with a single episode is smaller than that of other groups with recurrent episodes and Meniere's disease.", "question": "Prognosis of low-tone sudden deafness - does it inevitably progress to Meniere's disease?", "context": "OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether low-tone SD was a precursor of Meniere's disease and whether patients with low-tone SD suffered from endolymphatic hydrops.\nPATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective case review in the university hospital. A total of 184 patients with low-tone SD were divided into two groups with single and recurrent episodes. The progress, follow-up audiograms, and ECochG results of the patients were reviewed and compared with those of patients with high-tone SD and Meniere's disease.\nRESULTS: In all, 83 of 177 patients with low-tone SD unaccompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; 15 of the 83 developed vertiginous attacks. The remaining 94 patients had a single episode. Three of the seven patients with low-tone SD accompanied by vertigo had recurrent hearing loss; two of the three were subsequently confirmed to have Meniere's disease. The other four had a single episode. No difference in rate of progress from SD to Meniere's disease was observed among the low-tone and the high-tone SD groups. The average -SP/AP of each group with a single episode is smaller than that of other groups with recurrent episodes and Meniere's disease.", "long_answer": "We conclude that not all low-tone sudden deafness (SD) patients suffered from endolymphatic hydrops even if they had vertigo attack at the onset and that electrocochleography (ECochG) was a useful prognostic tool."}
+{"id": "pubmedqa_train_15", "benchmark": "pubmedqa", "source_repo": "qiaojin/PubMedQA", "source_config": "pqa_labeled", "source_split": "train", "source_pubid": 15280782, "prompt": "Question: Is unsafe sexual behaviour increasing among HIV-infected individuals?\n\nContext:\nBACKGROUND: The number of new diagnoses of HIV infection is rising in the northwestern hemisphere and it is becoming increasingly important to understand the mechanisms behind this trend.\nOBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether reported unsafe sexual behaviour among HIV- infected individuals is changing over time.\nDESIGN: Participants in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study were asked about their sexual practices every 6 months for 3 years during regular follow-up of the cohort beginning on 1 April 2000.\nMETHODS: : Logistic regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations assuming a constant correlation between responses from the same individual.\nRESULTS: At least one sexual behaviour questionnaire was obtained for 6545 HIV-infected individuals and the median number of questionnaires completed per individual was five. There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sex over time in this population [odds ratio (OR), 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-1.05]. Females (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.19-1.60), 15-30 year olds (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47), those with HIV-positive partners (OR, 12.58; 95% CI, 10.84-14.07) and those with occasional partners (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.87-3.67) were more likely to report unsafe sex. There was no evidence of a response bias over time, but individuals were less willing to leave questions about their sexual behaviour unanswered or ambiguous (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97).", "question": "Is unsafe sexual behaviour increasing among HIV-infected individuals?", "context": "BACKGROUND: The number of new diagnoses of HIV infection is rising in the northwestern hemisphere and it is becoming increasingly important to understand the mechanisms behind this trend.\nOBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether reported unsafe sexual behaviour among HIV- infected individuals is changing over time.\nDESIGN: Participants in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study were asked about their sexual practices every 6 months for 3 years during regular follow-up of the cohort beginning on 1 April 2000.\nMETHODS: : Logistic regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations assuming a constant correlation between responses from the same individual.\nRESULTS: At least one sexual behaviour questionnaire was obtained for 6545 HIV-infected individuals and the median number of questionnaires completed per individual was five. There was no evidence of an increase in reported unsafe sex over time in this population [odds ratio (OR), 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-1.05]. Females (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.19-1.60), 15-30 year olds (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47), those with HIV-positive partners (OR, 12.58; 95% CI, 10.84-14.07) and those with occasional partners (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.87-3.67) were more likely to report unsafe sex. There was no evidence of a response bias over time, but individuals were less willing to leave questions about their sexual behaviour unanswered or ambiguous (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97).", "long_answer": "There was no evidence of a trend in unsafe sex behaviour over time. However, several subgroups were identified as being more likely to report unsafe sex and should be targeted for specific interventions."}