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.

Example Input: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy is one of the key strategies for the improvement of survival in pancreatic cancer; however, no method to predict the response has yet been established. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the predictive value of REG4, a new member of the regenerating (REG) islet-derived family of proteins.', 'Stably REG4-expressing cells were established from a pancreatic cancer cell line and exposed in vitro to gamma-ray or gemcitabine to investigate the relevance of REG4 to the resistance to chemotherapy or radiotherapy. In 23 patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, the serum concentration of REG4 was measured before preoperative chemoradiotherapy, and the histologic response was evaluated after the surgery.', 'A 3-(4, 5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay and fluorescence activated cell scanning (FACS) revealed that REG4-overexpressing cells were resistant to gamma-radiation but showed a modest resistance to gemcitabine. The patients with a higher REG4 level, but not carcinoembryonic antigen or CA-19-9, showed an unfavorable histologic response to chemoradiotherapy (Spearman, rho = 0.439, P = 0.039). The patients showing a higher REG4 level experienced local recurrence postoperatively.
Example Output: 1

Example Input: This magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study of 26 subjects with nasal congestion was performed to assess in the complete nasal passage both the anatomical effect of the marketed Breathe Right Nasal Strip (BRNS) relative to placebo and the potential adjunctive effect of using a decongestant in combination with the BRNS.', 'Randomized, crossover study.', 'The study consisted of two parts, the first involving application of either the BRNS or the placebo strip in a randomized, crossover design with evaluator blinding, and repeated MRI scanning; and the second a sequential process of decongestant administration, MRI scanning, application of the BRNS, and repeated MRI. The same anatomical MRI protocol was used throughout. Nasal patency was assessed in the whole nasal passage and eight subregions (by inferior-superior, anterior-posterior division). Numerical response scores representing subjective nasal congestion were also obtained.', 'Results demonstrate significant anatomical enlargement with the BRNS relative to placebo (P < .001), as well as an additive effect of using a decongestant in combination with the BRNS; both supported by a strong and significant negative correlation with the subjective nasal response measures of nasal congestion (r = -0.98, P = .002). Furthermore, analysis of the nasal subregions indicates that this adjunctive effect arises from a partially localized action of the complementary products: the BRNS acting primarily anteriorly in the nose and the decongestant mainly posteriorly.
Example Output: 1

Example Input: To demonstrate bioequivalence of linagliptin/metformin fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablets and the corresponding combination of individual tablets taken together, i.e., free-pill (FP) treatment.', 'Three dosing combinations were evaluated in three separate randomized studies: linagliptin 2.5 mg with 500 mg, 850 mg, or 1,000 mg metformin. These studies used a prospective, open-label, randomized, two-way crossover design to evaluate bioequivalence in healthy volunteers (n = 287). After an overnight fast, participants received an FDC tablet once, and on a separate visit received the corresponding FP treatment. The two possible treatment sequences (FDC/FP and FP/FDC) were randomly allocated to the participants. A washout period of 35 days separated the two study treatments. The primary endpoints were maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of linagliptin and metformin, area under the plasma concentration time curve from 0 to 72 hours (AUC0-72) for linagliptin, and from 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf) for metformin.', 'The 90% confidence intervals of the adjusted geometric mean ratios of Cmax and AUC (calculated as FDC/ FP) were within the bioequivalence acceptance limits of 80 - 125%. The number of participants reporting at least one adverse event following FDC treatments was comparable to, or less than, that following FP treatments. Evaluation of vital signs and clinical laboratory tests revealed no safety issues.
Example Output:
1