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.

In vivo MRA showed that the SNR-reducing effect of DM-was greater than that of D-USPIO (P , 0.05). With in vitro MRI scans, SNR was significantly lower in rabbits treated with dose 2 of DM-USPIO compared with D-USPIO treatment (P , 0.05), and it tended to be lower at dose 3 (P , 0.1). In conclusion, we suggest that DM-USPIO is superior to D-USPIO for the study of atherosclerotic lesions in rabbits.
1 - finding, 2 - finding, 3 - finding, 4 - finding, 5 - finding

TCR Vβ CDR3 repertoire diversity in human peripheral blood; spectratype; immune reconstitution; hematopoietic stem cell transplantation Corresponding author: Sarfraz A. Memon, M.D., Experimental Transplantation and Immunology Branch,
1 - other, 2 - other

The present study aimed to investigate the frequency of pathogenic Leptospira spp. in Brazilian bats and to determine possible risk factors associated to it. Ninety two bats of 12 species were evaluated. Whole genomic DNA from kidneys was extracted and real-time PCR specific to pathogenic Leptospira spp. was applied. Association between the frequency of specimens positive for Leptospira spp. and sex, age, bat species or family, season of collection, geographic localization and feeding habits was evaluated. The results showed that 39.13% of analyzed bats were found positive for Leptospira spp. Nine bat species had at least one positive result. There was no association among the evaluated variables and frequency of pathogenic Leptospira spp. Although the limitations due to lack of Leptospira spp. isolation, leptospiral carriage was demonstrated in bats of different species from southern Brazil, which reinforces the need for surveillance of infectious agents in wild animals.

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