In this task, you are given a paragraph (from a research paper) and your task is to classify each sentence of the paragraph (assume n sentence) into the following categories: Background, Purpose, Method, Finding/Contribution, or Other. Return the output in this format: 1 - category of sentence 1, 2 - category of sentence 2, ..., n - category of sentence n; where each number indicates the order of the sentence. The categories can be identified using the following questions: 
 Background: - Why is this problem important? - What relevant works have been done before? - What did the previous works miss? - What are the high-level research questions? - How might this help other researchers?
 Purpose: - What specific things do the researchers want to do? - What specific knowledge do the researchers want to know? - What specific hypothesis do the researchers want to test?
 Method: - How did the researchers do it or find it out? - What are the procedures and steps of this research?
 Finding/Contribution: - What did the researchers find out? Did the proposed methods work? - Did things behave as the researchers expected?
Other: put every text fragment that does not fit into any of the categories above here. Put a sentence here if its not in English, is not part of the article, contains numbers and dates, is a caption of a figure or a table, is a formatting error, or you are not sure about it.

Input: Consider Input: Rationale: After lung transplantation, insults to the allograft generally result in one of four histopathologic patterns of injury: (1) acute rejection, (2) lymphocytic bronchiolitis, (3) organizing pneumonia, and (4) diffuse alveolar damage (DAD). We hypothesized that DAD, the most severe form of acute lung injury, would lead to the highest risk of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) and that a type I immune response would mediate this process. Objectives: Determine whether DAD is associated with CLAD and explore the potential role of CXCR3/ligand biology. Methods: Transbronchial biopsies from all lung transplant recipients were reviewed. The association between the four injury patterns and subsequent outcomes were evaluated using proportional hazards models with time-dependent covariates. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) concentrations of the CXCR3 ligands (CXCL9/MIG, CXCL10/ IP10, and CXCL11/ITAC) were compared between allograft injury patterns and "healthy" biopsies using linear mixed-effects models. The effect of these chemokine alterations on CLAD risk was assessed using Cox models with serial BAL measurements as time-dependent covariates. Measurements and Main Results: There were 1,585 biopsies from 441 recipients with 62 episodes of DAD. An episode of DAD was associated with increased risk of CLAD (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-4.7) and death (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-3.0). There were marked elevations in BAL CXCR3 ligand concentrations during DAD. Furthermore, prolonged elevation of these chemokines in serial BAL fluid measurements predicted the development of CLAD. Conclusions: DAD is associated with marked increases in the risk of CLAD and death after lung transplantation. This association may be mediated in part by an aberrant type I immune response involving CXCR3/ligands.

Output: 1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - background, 4 - background, 5 - background, 6 - background, 7 - background, 8 - purpose, 9 - method, 10 - method, 11 - method, 12 - method, 13 - finding, 14 - finding, 15 - finding, 16 - finding, 17 - finding, 18 - finding


Input: Consider Input: This study aimed to determine the aetiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) by adding polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to conventional methods and to describe the clinical and laboratory features between patients with bacterial pneumonia (BP) and viral pneumonia (VP). Adults with CAP admitted from November 2009 to October 2010 were included. Demographics, comorbidities, severity and clinical features were recorded. Conventional microbiological methods included blood and sputum cultures, acute and convalescent serologic samples, and antigen urinary detection. New methods included multiplex PCR for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Bordetella pertussis and 15 respiratory viruses. A total of 169 patients were included. Using conventional methods, we identified a pathogen in 51 % of cases. With PCR, up to 70 % of cases had an aetiological diagnosis. Fortyfive patients had BP (34 %), 22 had VP (17 %) and 25 (19 %) had co-infection (BP and VP). Pneumococci and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) were the most frequently identified pathogens. Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) median values were significantly higher in BP than in VP patients. Shaking chills, higher CURB score and shock were significantly more frequent in BP. A viral infection was identified in more than one-third of patients with CAP. Clinical and laboratory features could help to differentiate between VP and BP and to guide empirical therapy. A. Sangil : E. Calbo : S. Benet : M. E. Viladot : V. Pascual :

Output: 1 - purpose, 2 - method, 3 - method, 4 - method, 5 - method, 6 - method, 7 - method, 8 - method, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding, 13 - finding, 14 - finding, 15 - finding, 16 - finding, 17 - finding, 18 - finding, 19 - finding


Input: Consider Input: Public Health jo urnal homepage: www .e lse vi er.co m/ pu he p u b l i c h e a l t h 1 5 0 ( 2 0 1 7 ) 8 7 e9 2.


Output: 1 - other, 2 - other