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.

Ex Input:
Routine detection of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) is currently limited to RT-PCR but this test cannot distinguish between viable and inactivated virus. We evaluated the capability of disinfectants to both inactivate PEDV and sufficiently damage viral RNA beyond RT-PCR detection. Five classes of disinfectants (phenol, quaternary ammonium compound, sodium hypochlorite, oxidizing agent, and quaternary ammonium/glutaraldehyde combination) were evaluated in vitro at varying concentrations, both in the presence and absence of swine feces, and at three different temperatures. No infectious PEDV was recovered after treatment with evaluated disinfectants. Additionally, all tested disinfectants except for 0.17% sodium hypochlorite dramatically reduced qRT-PCR values. However, no disinfectants eliminated RT-PCR detection of PEDV across all replicates; although, 0.52%, 1.03% and 2.06% solutions of sodium hypochlorite and 0.5% oxidizing agent did intermittently produce RT-PCR negatives. To simulate field conditions in a second aim, PEDV was applied to pitted aluminum coupons, which were then treated with either 2.06% sodium hypochlorite or 0.5% oxidizing agent. Post-treatment surface swabs of the coupons tested RT-PCR positive but were not infectious to cultured cells or naïve pigs. Ultimately, viable PEDV was not detected following application of each of the tested disinfectants, however in most cases RT-PCR detection of viral RNA remained. RT-PCR detection of PEDV is likely even after disinfection with many commercially available disinfectants.

Ex Output:
1 - background, 2 - purpose, 3 - method, 4 - method, 5 - method, 6 - finding, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - method, 11 - method, 12 - method, 13 - finding, 14 - finding, 15 - finding, 16 - finding


Ex Input:
A multiplex quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (mqPCR) assay was developed and validated for the detection and differentiation of porcine circovirus type 3 (PCV3) and type 2 (PCV2) strains. The assay coverage was 97.9% (184/188) for PCV3 and 99.1% (1889/1907) for PCV2 sequences that were available from the current GenBank database. The PCR amplification efficiencies were 98-99% for plasmids, and 92-96% for diagnostic samples, with correlation coefficients all greater than 0.99. The limit of detection (LOD) determined as plasmid copies per reaction was 17 for PCV3 and 14 for PCV2. The assay specifically detected the targeted viruses without cross reacting to each other or to other common porcine viruses. Among 336 swine clinical samples collected in 2018, 101 (30.1%) were PCV3 positive, 56 (16.7%) were PCV2 positive and 18 (5.4%) were co-positives. Sixty selected PCV3 positives were confirmed by Sanger sequencing, and 53 of the 56 PCV2 positive samples were tested positive by another validated PCR assay.

Ex Output:
1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - background, 4 - background, 5 - background, 6 - finding, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding


Ex Input:
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.

Ex Output:

1 - method, 2 - method, 3 - finding, 4 - finding, 5 - finding, 6 - finding, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding