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]: One sentence summary: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating antimicrobial prophylaxis or metaphylaxis against naturally occurring bovine respiratory disease. Editor: Edmundo Calva ABSTRACT A distinct difference between veterinary and human medicine is the routine use of antimicrobial mass medications (prophylaxis, metaphylaxis) to healthy individuals. The need for antimicrobial mass medications is based on beliefs that group/s of animals will contract a bacterial disease (i.e. morbidity) and/or die (i.e. mortality). Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) represents the major indication for cattle antimicrobials worldwide. The objectives were to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) for naturally occurring BRD investigating antimicrobial prophylaxis/metaphylaxis to prevent morbidity/mortality. In total, 58 publications met the inclusion criteria summarizing 169 individual RCTs, spanning 50 years . Antimicrobial prophylaxis and metaphylaxis demonstrated moderate, yet highly variable relative risk reductions in BRD morbidity. These were dependent on the antimicrobial classes used, dependent on metaphylaxis definition, BRD attack rates and duration of the RCTs. Best relative risk reductions were from broad-spectrum critically important antimicrobials, or combinations. BRD prophylaxis/metaphylaxis represents major antimicrobial consumption for highly variable short-term gains in absolute risk reduction of morbidity/mortality. Despite widespread use of prevention products, the need for antimicrobial mass medications should be re-evaluated since the underlying problem is more likely the segmented infrastructure of the feedlot and veal calf industries compared to the disease itself.
[A]: 1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - background, 4 - background, 5 - purpose, 6 - method, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding, 13 - finding, 14 - finding


[Q]: Hepatitis B virus Á HepG2.2.15 cell line Á Lentiviral vector Á RNAi Á Doxycycline Abbreviations CP Core promoter DOX Doxycycline DR1 Direct repeat 1 EN2 Enhancer II region HAV Hepatitis A virus HBV Hepatitis B virus HBcAg Hepatitis core antigen HBsAg Hepatitis B surface antigen HBeAg Hepatitis B e antigen HCC Hepatocellular carcinoma HCV Hepatitis C virus HIV Human immunodeficiency virus HSV Herpes simplex virus KRAB Krüppel associated box Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (
[A]: 1 - finding


[Q]: Background: Longtime follow-up studies on patients with pharyngotonsillitis are rare. We aimed to describe the patterns of new visits for a sore throat, complications and tonsillectomy during 2 years in a cohort of patients with pharyngotonsillitis and non-infected controls. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on a cohort of patients with acute sore throat (n = 207), and non-infected controls (n = 108). New visits, complications and tonsillectomy within 2 years was recorded and analyzed in relation to microbiological findings at inclusion. Results: Patients with Group A streptococci (GAS) (12/66) reconsulted more often within 30 days than patients with no GAS (9/141) (p = 0.009) and patients with F. necrophorum (2/29). After 2 years, we observed no significant differences in reconsultations with regard to aetiology at inclusion. A single complication was recorded and 5 patients were planned for tonsillectomy. Conclusions: Group A streptococci were the sole aetiological agent associated with recurrent sore throat while F. necrophorum did not distinguish itself as a major cause of either recurrent infection or complications in this cohort. More studies, preferably with the focus on adolescents, are needed before F. necrophorum can be considered an important cause of pharyngotonsillitis.
[A]:
1 - background, 2 - purpose, 3 - purpose, 4 - method, 5 - method, 6 - method, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding