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: Conclusions. Streptococcus pneumoniae, RSV, and rhinovirus may be the major microorganisms associated with pneumonia infections in children <5 years of age from developing and emerging countries. Increasing S. pneumoniae vaccination coverage may substantially reduce the burden of pneumonia among children in developing countries.

A: 1 - finding, 2 - finding, 3 - finding
****
Q: 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 :

A: 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
****
Q: Objective: Tumor-treating fields are currently used to successfully treat various cancers; however, the specific pathways associated with its efficacy remain unknown in the immune responses. Here, we evaluated tumor-treating fields-mediated initiation of the macrophage-specific immune response. Materials and Methods: We subjected RAW 264.7 mouse macrophages to clinically relevant levels of tumor-treating fields (0.9 V/cm, 150 kHz) and evaluated alterations in cytokine expression and release, as well as cell viability. Additionally, we investigated the status of immunomodulatory pathways to determine their roles in tumor-treating fields-mediated immune activation. Results and Discussion: Our results indicated that tumor-treating fields treatment at 0.9 V/cm decreased cell viability and increased cytokine messenger RNA/protein levels, as well as levels of nitric oxide and reactive oxygen species, relative to controls. The levels of tumor necrosis factor a, interleukin 1b, and interleukin 6 were markedly increased in tumor-treating fields-treated RAW 264.7 cells cocultured with 4T1 murine mammary carcinoma cells compared with those in 4T1 or RAW 264.7 cells with or without tumor-treating fields treatment. Moreover, the viability of 4T1 cells treated with the conditioned medium of tumor-treating fields-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells decreased, indicating that macrophage activation by tumor-treating fields effectively killed the tumor cells. Moreover, tumor-treating fields treatment activated the nuclear factor kB and mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways involved in immunomodulatory signaling. Conclusion: These results provide critical insights into the mechanisms through which tumor-treating fields affect macrophagespecific immune responses and the efficacy of this method for cancer treatment.

A:
1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - purpose, 4 - method, 5 - method, 6 - method, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding, 13 - finding, 14 - finding
****