human
TASK: Your task is to answer biomedical questions using the given abstract. Only output yes, no, or maybe as answer.
INPUT: ['To characterise the variation in performance indicators of the Finnish cervical screening programme by screening laboratory and to assess whether the performance affects cervical cancer incidence.', 'Cervical cancer screening data from 1999 to 2003 from six well-established laboratories were used to analyse rates for follow-up recommendations, referrals and histologically confirmed dysplastic lesions. Laboratory-specific cervical cancer incidences for 1954-2003 were assessed using the cancer registry files.', 'Differences in follow-up recommendations were up to 3.1-fold and 2.2-fold in referrals; differences in the rates for CIN1, CIN2 and CIN3+ were up to 4.5-, 4.7-, and 1.5-fold, respectively. Pre-screening incidence rates for cervical cancer varied 1.5-fold by laboratory, with no major differences in the incidence trends since the onset of screening.'] Does significant variation in performance reflect the effectiveness of the cervical cancer screening programme in Finland?
OUTPUT:

agent
no
TASK: Your task is to answer biomedical questions using the given abstract. Only output yes, no, or maybe as answer.
INPUT: ['To characterise the variation in performance indicators of the Finnish cervical screening programme by screening laboratory and to assess whether the performance affects cervical cancer incidence.', 'Cervical cancer screening data from 1999 to 2003 from six well-established laboratories were used to analyse rates for follow-up recommendations, referrals and histologically confirmed dysplastic lesions. Laboratory-specific cervical cancer incidences for 1954-2003 were assessed using the cancer registry files.', 'Differences in follow-up recommendations were up to 3.1-fold and 2.2-fold in referrals; differences in the rates for CIN1, CIN2 and CIN3+ were up to 4.5-, 4.7-, and 1.5-fold, respectively. Pre-screening incidence rates for cervical cancer varied 1.5-fold by laboratory, with no major differences in the incidence trends since the onset of screening.'] Does significant variation in performance reflect the effectiveness of the cervical cancer screening programme in Finland?
OUTPUT:
