Given a passage classify if the passage has a definite objective/aim/goal or not. Output '1' if the passage has a defininte objective/aim/goal and output '0' if the passage does not have a definite objective/aim/goal.

Ex Input:
Large mega base-pair genomic regions show robust alterations in DNA methylation levels in multiple cancers. A vast majority of these regions are hypomethylated in cancers. These regions are generally enriched for CpG islands, Lamin Associated Domains and Large organized chromatin lysine modification domains, and are associated with stochastic variability in gene expression. Given the size and consistency of hypomethylated blocks (HMB) across cancer types, we hypothesized that the immediate causes of methylation instability are likely to be encoded in the genomic region near HMB boundaries, in terms of specific genomic or epigenomic signatures. However, a detailed characterization of the HMB boundaries has not been reported.', 'Here, we focused on ~13 k HMBs, encompassing approximately half of the genome, identified in colon cancer. We modeled the genomic features of HMB boundaries by Random Forest to identify their salient features, in terms of transcription factor (TF) binding motifs. Additionally we analyzed various epigenomic marks, and chromatin structural features of HMB boundaries relative to the non-HMB genomic regions.', 'We found that the classical promoter epigenomic mark--H3K4me3, is highly enriched at HMB boundaries, as are CTCF bound sites. HMB boundaries harbor distinct combinations of TF motifs. Our Random Forest model based on TF motifs can accurately distinguish boundaries not only from regions inside and outside HMBs, but surprisingly, from active promoters as well. Interestingly, the distinguishing TFs and their interacting proteins are involved in chromatin modification. Finally, HMB boundaries significantly coincide with the boundaries of Topologically Associating Domains of the chromatin.

Ex Output:
0


Ex Input:
To determine the association of ethanol intoxication with hypoglycemia in ED patients.', 'Retrospective, laboratory log review of 953 consecutive patients who were evaluated for ethanol intoxication in an urban university hospital ED over a three-month period. Simultaneous serum glucose determination was carried out for each patient and associations between ethanol level and glucose were sought.', 'Glucose concentrations were unavailable for 16 patients (1.7%). Of the remaining patients, 584 patients had detectable ethanol concentrations (ethanol-positive), and 353 had no detectable ethanol (ethanol-negative). Ethanol concentrations (mean +/- SD) in the ethanol-positive group were 50.11 +/- 24.08 mmol/L (231 +/- 111 mg/dL), and glucose concentrations were 5.83 +/- 1.94 mmol/L (105 +/- 35 mg/dL). Hypoglycemia [glucose < 3.72 mmol/L (67 mg/dL)] was observed for five (0.9%) ethanol-positive patients. It was classified as mild-moderate [2.78-3.66 mmol/L (50-66 mg/dL)] for four patients (0.7%) and severe [< 2.78 mmol/L (50 mg/dL)] for one (0.2%). Ethanol concentrations ranged from 25.60 to 68.33 mmol/L (118 to 315 mg/dL). There was no correlation between ethanol and glucose concentrations in any subset of the ethanol-positive patients population. In the ethanol-positive group, patients who had several ethanol-positive visits (56 patients, mean 3.6 visits/patient) accounted for four of the five episodes of hypoglycemia, including the one episode of severe hypoglycemia. The frequency of hypoglycemia in repeat visitors (2.0%) was higher than that in the group of patients without repeat visits (0.2%). In the ethanol-negative group, there were four (1.1%) episodes of mild-moderate hypoglycemia and no severely hypoglycemic patients. Hypoglycemia was not more likely to occur among ethanol-positive patients than it was among ethanol-negative patients.

Ex Output:
1


Ex Input:
To determine whether full-scale simulation (SIM) is superior to interactive problem-based learning (PBL) for teaching medical students acute care assessment and management skills.', 'Randomized controlled trial.', 'Simulation center at a U.S. medical school.', 'Thirty-one fourth-year medical students in a week-long acute care course.', 'After institutional review board approval and informed consent, eligible students were randomized to either the SIM or PBL group. On day 1, all subjects underwent a simulator-based initial assessment designed to evaluate their critical care skills. Two blinded investigators assessed each student using a standardized checklist. Subsequently, the PBL group learned about dyspnea in a standard PBL format. The SIM group learned about dyspnea using the simulator. To equalize simulator education time, the PBL group learned about acute abdominal pain on the simulator, whereas the SIM group used the PBL format. On day 5, each student was tested on a unique dyspnea scenario.', "Mean initial assessment and final assessment checklist scores and their change for the SIM and PBL groups were compared using the Student's t-test. A p < .05 was considered significant. The SIM and PBL groups had similar mean (PBL 0.44, SIM 0.47, p = .64) initial assessment scores (earned score divided by maximum score) and were deemed equivalent. The SIM group performed better than the PBL group on the final assessment (mean, PBL 0.53, SIM 0.72, p < .0001). When each student's change in score (percent correct on final assessment minus percent correct on the initial assessment) was compared, SIM group students performed better (mean improvement, SIM 25 percentage points vs. PBL 8 percentage points, p < .04)

Ex Output:

1