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.
--------
Question: www.thelancet.com/respiratory Vol

Answer: 1 - other


Question: In an effort to rapidly discover lead compounds targeting M pro , two compounds (11a and 11b) were designed and synthesized, both of which exhibited excellent inhibitory activity with an IC 50 value of 0.05 μ M and 0.04 μ M respectively. Significantly, both compounds exhibited potent anti-SARS-CoV-2 infection activity in a cell-based assay with an EC 50 value of 0.42 μ M and 0.33 μ M, respectively. The X-ray crystal structures of SARS-CoV-2 M pro in complex with 11a and 11b were determined at 1.5 Å resolution, respectively. The crystal structures showed that 11a and 11b are covalent inhibitors, the aldehyde groups of which are bound covalently to Cys145 of M pro . Both compounds showed good PK properties in vivo, and 11a also exhibited low toxicity which is promising drug leads with clinical potential that merits further studies.

Answer: 1 - purpose, 2 - method, 3 - finding, 4 - finding, 5 - finding, 6 - finding, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding


Question: Results: A total of five RCTs were identified. All of the RCTs were of high risk of bias with flawed study design and poor methodological quality. All RCTs included children aged between 6 months to 14 years. Results of individual trials showed that Shuanghuanglian oral liquid (RR 4.00; 95% CI: 2.26 to 7.08), and Xiaoer Resuqing oral liquid (RR 1.43; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.77) had higher cure rates compared with antivirus drugs. Most of the trials did not report adverse events, and the safety of CPMs was still uncertain. Conclusions: Some CPMs showed a potential positive effect for the common cold on cure rate. However, due to the poor methodology quality and the defects in the clinical design of the included RCTs, such as the lack of placebo controlled trials, the inappropriate comparison intervention and outcome measurement, the confirmative conclusions on the beneficial effect of CPMs for the common cold could not be drawn.

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