Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "A hurricane with winds in excess of 180 miles per hour is scary enough. But some corners of the Internet are stirring additional panic -- and attracting additional clicks -- by referring to an extreme hurricane category that doesn’t even exist. The web post appeared as Hurricane Irma was powering through the Caribbean, days ahead of an expected landfall somewhere in Florida. The storm was one of the most powerful to form in the Atlantic Ocean in decades, with sustained winds as high as 185 miles per hour. Into this maelstrom came a website posing as an arm of CNN (spoiler, it’s not) posting a page headlined, ""HURRICANE IRMA could be a Category 6 by the time it hits East Coast."" The advertising-filled page has almost no content of its own -- just an audio recording of a folksy, older-sounding woman rambling, stream-of-consciousness style, about the approach of Irma. At one point, she says, ""The wind speeds are way up there into the category 6 territory."" A flurry of other questionable websites also played with the idea of Irma becoming a Category 6 storm. There is no such thing. The scale used by the National Hurricane Center only goes as high as 5. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale was developed by Herbert Saffir, an engineer in Coral Gables, Fla., and Robert Simpson, who headed the National Hurricane Center from 1967 to 1973. The scale used wind speeds as a guide to predict the extent of structural damage. ""Saffir, an engineer and expert on wind damage who helped write the Dade County, Fla., building code, developed the first version of the scale in 1971 for a United Nations report on construction that could stand up to high winds,"" wrote Jack Williams the founding weather editor of USA Today and co-author of Hurricane Watch: Forecasting the Deadliest Storms on Earth. As for Simpson, Williams wrote, one of his formative experiences at the National Hurricane Center came with the approach of Hurricane Camille to the Mississippi coast on Aug. 16, 1969. The storm was shaping up to be extremely dangerous, but Simpson grappled with the best way to communicate this to residents in the storm’s path. ""Simpson broke the Weather Bureau's rule against using specific wind speed or surge figures in forecasts -- they were supposed to say things such as ‘strong winds and dangerously high water are expected,’ "" Williams wrote. ""After it was all over, despite the success of the evacuations, Simpson felt he needed a better way to communicate what a storm is capable of doing. He correlated Saffir's wind damage rankings with the surge potential to create the scale used today."" While officials at the National Hurricane Center began using Simpson’s new scale internally, it only began releasing it to the public in 1975, amid clamor by the media for an easily understandable metric. Officially, the Saffir-Simpson scale is based on a hurricane's sustained wind speed. ""Hurricanes reaching Category 3 and higher are considered major hurricanes because of their potential for significant loss of life and damage,"" according to the National Hurricane Center. ""Category 1 and 2 storms are still dangerous, however, and require preventative measures."" The now-familiar scale of 1 to 5 breaks down as follows: Category Sustained winds (mph) Types of damage 1 74-95 Very dangerous winds will produce some damage 2 96-110 Extremely dangerous winds will cause extensive damage 3 111-129 Devastating damage will occur 4 130-156 Catastrophic damage will occur 5 157+ Catastrophic damage will occur The scale has changed in one significant way over the years. In 2010, the federal agency removed references to storm surge from the scale after some surge expectations proved to be off-base. (Storm surge refers to how far open waters reach beyond their normal levels on coastal land.) Instead, the center directs people to more specific forecasts about storm surge. Unlike the Fujita scale for tornadoes, which runs from 0 to 5, the Saffir-Simpson scale uses measurements taken before a storm hits land. The Fujita ratings are assigned after a storm has hit and the damage is investigated. From time to time, there has been discussion of whether a new category -- Category 6 -- should be added to the scale. That decision would likely fall to the National Hurricane Center after discussions with scientists in the field, said Jill Trepanier, a hurricane specialist in the Louisiana State University department of geography and anthropology. A simple extrapolation from the existing categories would probably set the threshold for a new Category 6 around 180 mph, making Irma a good candidate for that category if it existed, said James B. Elsner, the chair of geography at Florida State University who also runs a business called Climatek that develops software for hurricane and tornado risk models. The idea of creating a Category 6 is often met with skepticism, however. The most frequently cited reason is that Category 6 would add nothing to the understanding of how destructive the storm would be for buildings and other structures. ""Almost no structures can withstand sustained winds over 155 mph,"" said Michael M. Bell, an associate professor in atmospheric science at Colorado State University. ""At those wind speeds, significant damage or even total destruction of most buildings is expected. By this definition, adding a Category 6 would not add any new information, since the strongest criteria for expected wind damage has already been met."" Bill Read, the former director of the National Hurricane Center, agreed in an email with PolitiFact. And the scale’s co-creator, Simpson, agreed as well, in a 1991 interview. Asked whether the scale should be modified to include categories above 5, he said that above 155 mph, ""it's going to cause rupturing damages (to buildings) that are serious no matter how well it's engineered. … That's the reason why we didn't try to go any higher than that anyway."" In fact, several scientists said that a more useful change, if one had to be made, would be to focus less on wind speed specifically, either by modifying the Saffir-Simpson scale to include other factors or by giving added attention to other measurements. ""I personally believe that we need to work on effectively communicating the other hazards that tropical cyclones bring, including heavy rainfall and storm surge,"" Bell said. Hurricane Harvey, which hit coastal Texas, ""did cause significant wind damage as a Category 4, but much of the devastation in Houston and the surrounding areas was caused by inland flooding from sustained rainfall while Harvey was a tropical storm."" Similarly, ""much of the damage from Hurricane Katrina was caused by storm surge when the winds were Category 3,"" Bell said. ""These multiple hazards may not be well-correlated with the Saffir-Simpson Category at landfall, and therefore it is an incomplete description of the storm's destructive potential."" Trepanier said there’s no reason why a Category 6 is needed to communicate how fearsome Irma is. ""Irma is a beast,"" she said. ""It is safe to say the wind speeds are rare, but I see no benefit in calling it a Category 6. It should be considered catastrophic. And that is how people should refer to it."" So, as of now, there is no such thing as a Category 6 storm. The web post suggesting that Irma is one rates ." Claim: Hurricane Irma could be a Category 6 by the time it hits East Coast.

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren became the subject of increased scrutiny and rhetorical attacks from the right in January 2019, after she declared she was in the running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020. Against that background, a viral meme re-emerged on social media that attributed an eye-catching viewpoint on abortion to the Massachusetts senator: “‘Having an abortion is no different than someone having their tonsils removed.’ — Liberal Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren. Yes, she really said this and is really this damn crazy and stupid.”  In reality, Warren did not make these remarks. On 24 July 2018, an opinion column she wrote was published in Marie Claire magazine, one speculating that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice would create a conservative-leaning majority on the court that could bring a reversal of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision: “The threat of overturning Roe v. Wade is also serious. When abortions are illegal, women don’t stop getting them — they just risk their lives to do it. Today, thanks to Roe, getting an abortion is safer than getting your tonsils out. Before Roe v. Wade, many women turned to back-alley butchers to end their pregnancies.” In September 2018, the pro-life website LifeNews published an article that created a misleading impression of what Warren had actually said under the headline “Elizabeth Warren Compares Abortion to ‘Getting Your Tonsils Out. '” That article went on to state that “A pro-abortion Democrat from Massachusetts, Warren even likened the killing of an unborn baby in an abortion to getting tonsils removed.” In January 2019, the right-leaning NewsTarget website went even further in misrepresenting Warren’s actual remarks, with an article that carried the headline “Senator Elizabeth Warren likens an abortion to getting your TONSILS YANKED, because population control freaks think human babies in the womb are just worthless tissue.” Actually, Warren was making a very different point. Her column linked to a Time magazine article about a 2015 study published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. The lead author of that study, Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, told Time that the rate of complications observed after abortion procedures was lower than that seen after wisdom tooth removals and tonsillectomies. That’s a point Upadhyay has made elsewhere in support of the comparative safety of abortion procedures, and in opposition to laws restricting access to abortion or imposing stricter requirements before a woman can undergo the procedure. In an op-ed published by USA Today on 21 January 2019, Dr. Upadhyay wrote:  “Advocates of these [restrictive] laws usually use the misconception that abortion is unsafe to make arguments in favor of admitting privileges requirements and other abortion restrictions. In reality, less than one-third of 1 percent of abortions result in a major complication. Abortion is safer than wisdom tooth extraction and tonsillectomy, so it’s clear that these laws aren’t actually about protecting patients. Indeed, my research shows these policies have no observable effects on patient safety.”  So when Warren wrote that “getting an abortion is safer than getting your tonsils out,” she was making a point about the relative safety of the procedure as part of a broader argument in defense of Roe v. Wade. Claim: "Sen. Elizabeth Warren once said: ""Having an abortion is no different than someone having their tonsils removed."

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
Paragraph: There are three costs not mentioned in this news release that are critical in evaluating the relevance of this unpublished study. First, the release could have compared the costs of “dual mobility cup” hip transplants vs. conventional implants. We’re told the former are “more expensive” but it would be helpful to know by how much, since the study suggests dual mobility cup transplants may be indicated in patients at high risk for dislocation. Second, the study is based on a “novel risk assessment tool” which suggests pre-operative scans in the sitting and standing positions. How much does this cost? It’s not mentioned. Third, how much money could potentially be saved by reducing the need for “revision surgeries” in patients whose implant becomes dislocated? It is unlikely that this will reduce costs overall given the small number of individuals who may require repeat surgery, even in this high risk group. Thus, the question is whether this is a cost-effective strategy or not. This study was done in two parts. Part one: a retrospective review of 1,082 conventional (not dual cup) total hip replacements (THRs), over 2 years, in which the dislocation rate was 1.8% (19 patients). We’re told about a third of the total cohort (320 of the 1,082) had “spinal disease and deformity” on imaging scans. In this group of 320, 10 patients (3.1%) had subsequent dislocations. Part two: Beginning in 2016 researchers began employing their risk assessment tool — pre-operative sitting/standing scans of the hip, and factoring in other risk factors like previous spinal fusion — and identified 192 of 1,009 patients (19%) as ‘high risk’ for dislocation. About three-fourths of these patients received dual cup transplants with only 1 having a subsequent dislocation (0.5%). The news release gives us the absolute rate of dislocations in both high-risk groups (3.1% vs. 0.5%), which is vital information to understand the scope of the potential benefit. And on that basis we’ll award a satisfactory grade here. However, we note limitations under the Evidence criterion below that have a bearing on these statistics. The news release does not mention any risks associated with hip replacement surgery in general, nor does it address potential harms specific to dual mobility cups, which are described in the release as the recommended approach to reduce risk for dislocations. The release notes that dual mobility cups may carry risks “if implanted unnecessarily” but doesn’t describe or quantify those risks. Of note, there is some concern that this type of replacement joint may release higher levels of metal ions than conventional joints when implanted in younger, more active patients. As presented, the only downside of these newer devices are the increased cost. It would be helpful to know if there are any other risks. Newer devices may have some risk simply due to not having long-term experience with them. Current hip replacement devices have been shown to work for 20+ years. It will take considerable time to know whether the same may hold for these newer devices. The release provides a relatively thorough description of how the study was conducted, noting that one group of patients was treated before the introduction of a new assessment protocol (in 2014-2015), and that the second group had their treatment guided by the new protocol (introduced in 2016). The fact that the second group had better outcomes (i.e. a lower rate of dislocations following hip replacement) indicates that the protocol must be helpful for identifying high-risk patients and treating them more appropriately, the release suggests. What’s lacking, though, is any acknowledgment that these two groups of patients might not be directly comparable. For example, did these two groups have the same types of “spinal disease and deformity” — the nature of which might impact the failure rate for their hip replacements? Did they also have the same level of mobility and co-existing illnesses? Did anything else about the treatment provided to patients change in the time between the first group’s treatment and the second group? Were both groups followed for the same length of time post-surgery? Differences in any of these areas could have biased the results. To conclusively demonstrate the effectiveness of the new protocol, researchers would need to randomly assign patients to receive the new protocol, or not, and document how both groups fared following treatment. A brief note to that effect, or at least a mention of some of the limitations inherent in the current study’s design, would have been helpful. The report should have mentioned that the comparison was not a direct one. The best way to examine these outcomes would be to compare patients screened to be at high risk and then randomize them to the new device or a standard one. It is possible that the benefit is from knowing that they are at higher risk. For example, physical therapy or other instruction may be given to mitigate the risk, irrespective of the device inserted. No disease mongering. The release states that dislocations occur in about 1% of patients following hip replacement. The release doesn’t discuss funding for the study or possible conflicts of interest among the study authors. A quick search of the federal Open Payments database shows that the lead author, Dr. Jonathan Vigdorchik, receives payments from a number of device companies, including those that make dual mobility hip implants. Since we’re not aware of alternatives to this tool we’ll rate this criteria Not Applicable. It’s clear that patients who undergo hip replacement at NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital have access to the risk assessment screening and treatment algorithm prior to surgery. But what about patients who can’t travel to New York? Is anything similar in use at other institutions? The release is silent on this point. The release clarifies the problem this new assessment tool is trying to solve and why it’s worth reading about: Some newer hip implants are designed with dual mobility cups that allow for increased range of motion, which helps reduce dislocation risk. However, no guidelines currently exist to aid clinicians in deciding when to use these more flexible implants, which are often more expensive than conventional implants, may not be medically necessary, and may carry added risks if implanted unnecessarily. No unjustifiable language. Claim: New tool helps identify risk for post-surgical dislocations following hip replacement

Ex Output:

1