Given a passage classify if the passage has a definite objective/aim/goal or not. Output '1' if the passage has a defininte objective/aim/goal and output '0' if the passage does not have a definite objective/aim/goal.

Q: Although moderate (conscious) sedation is intended during elective gastrointestinal endoscopy, unintended levels of deep sedation occur. The aims of this study were to prospectively evaluate the incidence and risk factors of deep sedation during elective endoscopy with meperidine and midazolam intended to maintain a level of moderate sedation.', "Eighty American Society of Anesthesiology class 1-2, outpatients presenting for elective esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) were offered enrollment. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were administered according to a standardized protocol. Hemodynamic parameters and levels of sedation were assessed and recorded by a single observer at 3-min intervals. The Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scale (ranging 1-5) is a subjective sedation assessment scale used to assess sedation levels. Occurrence of deep sedation, defined by MOAA/S 1-2, was recorded. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to assess predictors of deep sedation.", 'Deep sedation occurred in 54/80 (68%) patients for a total of 204/785 (26%) of total sedation assessments. The percentage of deep sedation episodes of all sedation-level observations by procedure was 26% for EGD, 11% for colonoscopy, 35% for ERCP, and 29% for EUS. Deep sedation occurred at least once in 60% of EGD, 45% of colonoscopy, 85% of ERCP, and 80% of EUS. Multivariable analysis showed that only ERCP and EUS were independent risk factors of deep sedation.

A: 1
****
Q: NI margins have to be chosen appropriately to control the risk of degradation of treatment effects in non-inferiority (NI) trials. We aimed to study whether the current choice of NI margins protects sufficiently against a degradation of treatment effect on an average.', 'NI trials reflecting current practice were assembled and for each trial, the NI margin was translated into a likelihood of degradation. The likelihood of degradation was calculated as the conditional probability of a treatment being harmful given that it is declared non-inferior in the trial, using simulation. Its distribution among the NI trials was then studied to assess the potential risk of degradation.', "The median (lower/upper quartile) NI margin among 112 binary outcome NI trials corresponded to an odds ratio of 0.57(0.45, 0.66), while among 38 NI trials with continuous outcome, to a Cohen's d of -0.42(-0.54, -0.31) and a hazard ratio of 0.82(0.73, 0.86) among 24 survival outcome NI trials. Overall, the median likelihood of degradation was 56% (45%, 62%).

A: 1
****
Q: Increased oxidative stress is associated with coronary heart disease (CHD). We examined the association between plasma markers of oxidative stress and CHD in a cross-sectional sample of patients with diabetes and prospective CHD risk in a sample of men predominantly without diabetes.', 'Plasma total antioxidant status (TAOS) and the ratio of oxidized LDL (Ox-LDL) to LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) were determined in a cross-section of 761 Caucasian individuals with diabetes (UDACS study). Plasma TAOS was also determined in 310 baseline samples from a 10-year prospective cohort of 3012 healthy males (NPHSII).', 'Within UDACS, males with CHD had lower mean (SD) plasma TAOS [no CHD, 43.4 (13.2)%; CHD, 40.3 (13.8)%; P = 0.04]. The prevalence of CHD was higher in the lowest compared with the upper quartiles (32.7% vs 19.7%; P = 0.004). We observed a significant association between plasma Ox-LDL:LDL-C and CHD status [no CHD vs CHD, 16.9 (3.1) vs 19.3 (5.0) units/mmol; P = 0.04], with the prevalence of CHD being higher among men in the upper compared with lower quartiles (18.4% vs 35.1%; P = 0.003). No association was observed in females. In NPHSII, TAOS was lower in those who developed CHD [35.1 (8.0)% vs 37.1 (7.9)%; P = 0.04]. The odds ratio for CHD in the lowest compared with the upper quartile was 1.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-3.70; P = 0.04). This remained unchanged after adjustment for classic risk factors.

A:
0
****