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.

[Q]: A total of 123 community paediatricians and 23 microbiology laboratories studied the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of treatment of group A streptococcal pharyngitis in Italy. Of 1065 patients, from whom Streptococcus pyogenes was isolated, 723 returned to follow up and of these 138 (19%) still had a positive throat culture. The erythromycin resistance (ER) rate was 23.7% with resistance phenotype distribution of: 31.7% constitutive (CR), 26.6% inducible (IR) and 41.7% efflux pump (M) resistance phenotype. All strains were susceptible to the b-lactam agents tested. CR strains were highly resistant to all 14, 15 and 16 membered macrolides with the exception of rokitamycin which showed activity against 37.8% of isolates. All phenotype M and some IR isolates were susceptible to clindamycin, rokitamycin, josamycin and spiramycin; clarithromycin was active against a small percentage of strains belonging to the IR and M phenotype. Bacterial eradication was found in 85.5, 78.7 and 75.8% of the penicillin, macrolide and cephalosporin treated groups. Genotyping of strains showed that 8.7% of the 19% of cases classified as 'failed bacterial eradication' were due to recolonization with a different isolate, observed exclusively among b-lactams treated patients. Clinical cure was achieved in a high percentage of cases, irrespective of the antibiotic prescribed, with the best clinical efficacy being found following therapy with amoxycillin and clarithromycin (90.9%).
[A]: 1 - method, 2 - method, 3 - method, 4 - finding, 5 - finding, 6 - finding, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding, 13 - finding, 14 - finding, 15 - finding, 16 - finding, 17 - finding, 18 - finding


[Q]: No highlights are required as this is not a research article
[A]: 1 - other


[Q]: Conclusions Infection immunity to a recent human H3N2 virus confers minimal cross-protection against a European swine H3N2 virus. We discuss our findings with regard to the recent zoonotic infections of humans in the United States with a swine-origin H3N2 variant virus. Please cite this paper as: Qiu et al. (2013) Prior infection of pigs with a recent human H3N2 influenza virus confers minimal cross-protection against a European swine H3N2 virus.
[A]:
1 - finding, 2 - finding, 3 - finding