Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: While the financial costs of screening mammography & false-positive recalls & biopsies were not included in the study, readers would benefit from being reminded that recall mammography & biopsies increase patient financial costs. This article leads with valuable information for all women over age 40 by stating “Getting screening mammograms every two years instead of annually reduces the chance of a false alarm, a new study shows.”  Unfortunately the writer doesn’t quantify or elaborate adequately on that reduction. Instead, the writer later focuses on how women undergoing screening mammography shouldn’t be anxious if they experience a recall because over half of women who have screening mammograms for 10 years will be recalled. Readers would have been better served if the writer had emphasized the significant reduction in both recall mammograms & false-positive biopsies in women who are screened every two years rather than annually. Part of the continuing controversy over screening mammography focuses on annual versus biennial screening. Because this study showed a significant reduction in the percentage of those recalled & needing biopsies among women who are screened every other year, with no statistically significant increase in late-stage diagnosis of breast cancer, the article should have emphasized those important findings. The piece states that the researchers noted that “…false positive recalls may cause inconvenience & anxiety and biopsies can cause pain and scarring.” This article fails to include several important facts about the study. 1) This is a prospective cohort study of women screened between 1994-2006. 2) Most of the mammograms were film rather than digital. 3) Few women underwent screening for the entire 10 year period. 4) Screening mammography recall rates are influenced by the skill of the radiologists who read the mammograms. There was no disease mongering. No independent experts were quoted. The story did an adequate job comparing – at a very high level – annual screening versus biennial screening. Screening mammography is widely available throughout the United States. The study did not examine a new procedure. There’s no evidence that the story relied solely on a news release. Claim: Annual Mammograms May Have More False-Positives

Ex Output:
1


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The mid-pandemic election in Wisconsin yielded no shortage of bizarre storylines. But a noteworthy one emerged late in the day when President Donald Trump tried to put himself at the center of a debate over whether the election should have even been held as scheduled. The April 7, 2020, contest featured a Democratic presidential primary and a Wisconsin Supreme Court race between conservative-backed Daniel Kelly and liberal-backed Jill Karofsky, as well as numerous local elections. At his daily briefing that day, Trump connected his endorsement of Kelly to Gov. Tony Evers’ last-minute attempt to change the election. The implication was Democrats thought they’d have a better chance of boosting Karofsky by extending the election period. Here’s an excerpt of Trump’s extended discussion on the topic: ""(Wisconsin Democrats) didn't want to move the election. As soon as I endorsed him, the Wisconsin Democrats say, ‘Oh, let's move the election to two months later, three.’ They didn't mind having the election until I endorsed him, which is very interesting."" So Trump is saying his endorsement caused Evers to try moving the election back two months. Let’s take a closer look at that timeline. In case you lost track of the election back-and-forth, the basics are these: Evers had said for weeks he didn’t have the authority to move the election on his own. Then on Friday — four days before the election — he called on the Republican Legislature to switch to an all-mail election that would allow votes to come in through May 19, 2020. He also ordered a special session of the Legislature for the following day to take up the matter. The state Assembly and Senate both gaveled out of that session in seconds, without taking action. Then, 18 hours before polls opened, Evers issued an order to delay the election to June 9, 2020. Republicans appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where the conservative majority overturned Evers’ order, clearing the way to hold the election. Trump is claiming his endorsement of Kelly was a pivotal moment in this back-and-forth. Trump sent a tweet at 12:12 p.m. April 3, 2020, saying Kelly has his ""complete endorsement."" Evers’ call for a mail-in election was released about an hour later. But that’s a coincidence. Here’s why Trump is wrong. Evers’ call at that point was not to move the election by two months, but to switch the format to mail-in only and extend the deadline to May. The attempt to move the in-person election to June didn’t come until several days later. And the Evers’ administration had been moving toward that mail-in announcement well before Trump’s tweet, including calls to Republican leaders, said Evers spokeswoman Melissa Baldauff. But there’s a much more glaring oversight from Trump. He had already endorsed Kelly several months earlier. At a rally in Milwaukee on Jan. 14, 2020, Trump urged his supporters to ""go vote for Justice Daniel Kelly to defend the rule of law."" At that time, of course, coronavirus was barely a blip on the national radar. And it was the pandemic that fueled the back-and-forth over Wisconsin’s election, not a repeat of a prior endorsement. In a statement later on Election Day, Evers said Trump was not a factor in his decision-making. ""I don’t pay any attention to who the president endorses,"" the governor said. ""Frankly, my focus right now is on keeping the people of this state safe, and that’s why I issued an executive order to extend Wisconsin’s election date and make sure everyone could vote safely from home."" Trump claims his endorsement of Kelly caused the Wisconsin attempts to push the election back until June. That’s not at all how it happened. Trump had already endorsed Kelly back in January. And in any case, the action from Evers that coincidentally followed Trump’s reiterated endorsement on Twitter was to shift to a mail-in election, not to move the whole election by several months. That leaves us with a claim that is both false and ridiculous." Claim: “As soon as I endorsed (Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly), the Wisconsin Democrats said, let’s move the election to two months later.”

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Stem cells, which differ from other types of cells in the human body in that they’re capable of renewing themselves almost indefinitely and changing into more specialized cells with the potential to repair or replace specific tissues and organs, were discovered more than 100 years ago and, according to the National Institutes of Health, remain one of the most promising frontiers of medical research: Given their unique regenerative abilities, stem cells offer new potentials for treating diseases such as diabetes, and heart disease. However, much work remains to be done in the laboratory and the clinic to understand how to use these cells for cell-based therapies to treat disease, which is also referred to as regenerative or reparative medicine. There are two basic kinds of stem cells, embryonic and adult. The former can only harvested from human embryos, while the latter are found in a variety of human tissues such as bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, fat, and, since 2003, baby teeth. The scientists who discovered that the pulp of baby teeth is rich in stem cells also noted that SHED (“stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth”) have unique properties: They are long lived, grow rapidly in culture, and, with careful prompting in the laboratory, have the potential to induce the formation of specialized dentin, bone, and neuronal cells. If followup studies extend these initial findings, the scientists speculate they may have identified an important and easily accessible source of stem cells that possibly could be manipulated to repair damaged teeth, induce the regeneration of bone, and treat neural injury or disease. Another innovation in stem cell technology is the implementation of stem cell banks — specifically, cord blood stem cell banks and dental stem cell banks for the purpose of enabling parents to cryopreserve and store their children’s stem cells for use in reparative or regenerative medical treatments later in life. Any number of articles touting the use of such facilities are circulating online, including “Doctors Are Urging Parents Everywhere to Keep Their Kids’ Baby Teeth,” which, despite its title, doesn’t name or quote a single physician who actually recommends it. Nor is there any mention of the cost of these services. One such facility, called Store-A-Tooth, charges $1,749 up front plus $120 per year for storage. Another, The Tooth Bank, charges $475 plus $115 per year for storage. And there’s StemSave, whose services cost $630 up front and $120 per year. There are others within approximately the same range. The main question facing most parents, then, is whether the potential benefits of preserving their kids’ baby teeth justify the expense. The answer is possibly not. Research is ongoing and the future looks promising, but no one can predict when or to what degree those promises will be fulfilled. To date, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to approve the use of dental stem cells in any medical procedure. This is what the California Dental Association had to say about dental stem cell banking in 2013: Scientific study into cell-based therapies has identified tremendous potential for the use of stem cells to treat a number of diseases and disorders. As research has advanced, stem cell banking services, primarily umbilical cord blood banking, have sprung up around the country. More recently, researchers have discovered that stem cells harvested from deciduous teeth may be a source of tissue regeneration and repair. Like the marketing of umbilical cord banking to pregnant women, dental pulp stem cell tissue banks have begun to market to dentists and the public. Despite its exciting potential, experts agree it is premature to consider dental pulp stem cells as a source of cells for replacing or regenerating tissue. “What we do know,”  the CDA quotes Dr. Pamela Robey of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research as saying, “is the cells from dental pulp in baby or wisdom teeth have the ability to make dentin and pulp and they might have the ability to make bone, but right now that’s all we really know for sure … we can’t say how useful for the future they’ll be.” Considering the uncertainties and the cost, then, parents would be well advised to seek the opinion of a knowledgeable medical professional and carefully weigh their decision before investing in a baby tooth bank account. Claim: Stem cells can be harvested from baby teeth, so it's a good idea to preserve them in private stem cell banks for future use in medical treatments.

Ex Output:

1