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]: The role of respiratory viruses in the pathogenesis of Kawasaki disease (KD) remains controversial. In this study we showed that 8.8 % of KD patients had documented respiratory viral infections. Patients with concomitant viral infections had a higher frequency of coronary artery dilatations and were significantly more often diagnosed with incomplete KD. The presence of a concomitant viral infection should not exclude the diagnosis of KD.
[A]: 1 - background, 2 - finding, 3 - finding, 4 - finding


[Q]: FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) (Idaho Technology, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, USA) performance was retrospectively evaluated in respiratory samples collected from neonates in 2 reference neonatology units. Using the FilmArray RP assay, 121/152 (79.6%) samples were positive for at least 1 respiratory virus, while 31/ 152 (20.4%) were negative. FilmArray RP results were concordant in 68/72 (94.4%) respiratory samples tested with laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays, while in 4/72 (5.6%) samples, the FilmArray RP assay detected an additional virus (2 human rhinovirus/enterovirus and 2 bocavirus). In addition, FilmArray RP results for 70 of 80 (87.5%) respiratory samples tested were concordant with the Seegene Seeplex RV15® detection assay (Seegene, Inc., Seoul, South Korea), while 10/80 (12.5%) were discordant. The advantages of the FilmArray RP are the rapid detection of respiratory viruses (1 hour), the wide number of pathogens detectable in a single assay, and the reduced hands-on time.
[A]: 1 - method, 2 - method, 3 - finding, 4 - finding, 5 - finding, 6 - finding, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding


[Q]: Background: Respiratory viral infections can cause significant morbidity and mortality in immunocompromised patients. Conventional tests routinely available at most institutions are limited by the number of detectable pathogens, by a poor sensitivity and/or a long turnaround time. Objectives: To compare the performance of routine conventional testing with direct fluorescent antibody assays and viral culture to a customized TaqMan® array card (TAC) real-time PCR method, targeting 24 viruses, 8 bacteria and 2 fungi simultaneously. Study design: We collected 143 respiratory samples from 120 symptomatic immunocompromised patients. Samples for which conventional and TAC results were discordant underwent further verification testing. Results: The TAC assay identified viral pathogens in more samples than did conventional testing (77/143 versus 27/143; McNemar P < 0.0001), even when TAC results for viruses that could not be detected by conventional testing were excluded from analysis (59/143 versus 26/143; P < 0.0001). In addition, the TAC assay identified 18 samples with non-viral pathogens. Verification testing confirmed positive TAC results for 50 out of 55 samples for which conventional testing was negative. Two out of three samples with a positive conventional test but negative TAC result were confirmed positive. A viral and a total pathogen co-infection rate of 5.6% and 11.8% were found, respectively. Conclusions: The customized TAC assay resulted in a significantly increased identification of respiratory viruses. This study provides a practical real-life assessment of the performance of the TAC assay in a population for whom rapid and accurate diagnosis of viral and atypical pathogens is crucial for appropriate clinical management.
[A]:
1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - background, 4 - purpose, 5 - purpose, 6 - method, 7 - method, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding, 13 - finding, 14 - finding, 15 - finding