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:
Inhibition of extracellular matrix (ECM) degradation may represent a mechanism for cardiac protection against ischemia. Extracellular matrix metalloproteinase inducer (EMMPRIN) is highly expressed in response to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and induces activation of several matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), including gelatinases MMP-2 and MMP-9. We targeted EMMPRIN with paramagnetic/fluorescent micellar nanoparticles conjugated with the EMMPRIN binding peptide AP-9 (NAP9), or an AP-9 scrambled peptide as a negative control (NAPSC). We found that NAP9 binds to endogenous EMMPRIN in cultured HL1 myocytes and in mouse hearts subjected to ischemia/reperfusion (IR). Injection of NAP9 at the time of or one day after IR, was enough to reduce progression of myocardial cell death when compared to Control and NAPSC injected mice (infarct size in NAP9 injected mice: 32%±6.59 vs Control: 46%±9.04 or NAPSC injected mice: 48%±7.64). In the same way, cardiac parameters were recovered to almost healthy levels (LVEF NAP9 63% ± 7.24 vs Control 42% ± 4.74 or NAPSC 39% ± 6.44), whereas ECM degradation was also reduced as shown by inhibition of MMP-2 and MMP-9 activation. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) scans have shown a signal enhancement in the left ventricle of NAP9 injected mice with respect to non-injected, and to mice injected with NAPSC. A positive correlation between CMR enhancement and Evans-Blue/TTC staining of infarct size was calculated (R:0.65). Taken together, these results point to EMMPRIN targeted nanoparticles as a new approach to the mitigation of ischemic/reperfusion injury.

Ex Output:
1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - background, 4 - background, 5 - method, 6 - method, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding, 13 - finding, 14 - finding, 15 - 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:
The experiment results show that IILLS achieves the AUC values of 0.8675 and 0.9061 with the 10-fold cross validation and leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV), respectively, which illustrates that IILLS is superior to the competing methods. In addition, the case studies also further indicate that the IILLS method is effective for the virus-receptor interaction prediction.

Ex Output:

1 - finding, 2 - finding, 3 - finding