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 Microsoft PowerPoint file that made the rounds of the Internet in 2003 presented the viewer with a chilling slide show: four pictures of a pretty young woman with her friends and family, a post-accident photograph of the charred remains of a car, nine images of a horribly disfigured woman pursuing her daily routine (sharing time with her father, receiving medical treatment, eating, reading), and finally a reproduction of a “Don’t Drink and Drive” poster from the Texas Department of Public Safety bearing pre- and post-disfigurement photos of the young woman under the legend “Not everyone who gets hit by a drunk driver dies”:  This was one of the cases we really wished would have turned out to be someone’s sick idea of hoax. Unfortunately, the story was all too real. The slide show documented what happened to Jacqueline Saburido, a 20-year-old woman who had taken a break from attending college in Venezuela to come to the United States and study English. Her HelpJacqui website described the horrific accident that turned her life upside-down:  Early on Sunday morning September 19, 1999, Jacqui — then 20 years old — and four friends were on their way home from a birthday party. Reggie Stephey, an 18-year-old high school student, was on his way home from drinking beer with some buddies. On a dark road on the outskirts of Austin, Texas, Reggie’s SUV veered into the Oldsmobile carrying Jacqui and the others. Two passengers in the car were killed at the scene and two were rescued. Within minutes, the car caught fire. Jacqui was pinned in the front seat on the passenger side. She was burned over 60% of her body; no one thought she could survive. But Jacqui lived. Her hands were so badly burned that she no longer can use them. She lost her hair, her ears, her nose, her left eyelid and much of her vision. She has had more than 40 operations since the crash and has many more to go. A May 2002 profile in The Austin American-Statesman also described the terrible extent of Jacqui’s injuries:  At a distance Jacqui looks old. Up close, ageless. She has a baggy neckchin and thin crumpled lips. Her cheeks are splotchy and rough in places, smooth in others. Where her right ear should be, she has a slender crescent of cartilage around a pea-size black hole. On the left side, she has only a hole. Her nostrils are ragged, torn. A flap of skin hides her left eye. For more than two years, the eyeball floated naked in the socket, mostly blind but perpetually staring behind a clear plastic goggle. Her right eye sees behind a veil of scar. Her burned skin can’t sweat or protect her from heat and cold. It feels hot and tight, like having a sunburn. Scars run down her body, halting at her knees and before her size 7-1/2 feet, which the fire never touched. She has learned to use her feet like hands — her toes stroke a blanket’s softness and test shower water. Her fingers are amputated between the knuckle and the first joint. On her right hand, they are fused together like a mitten. Nerve damage has left parts of her body numb. She can make out some texture with the bottom of her right palm. Her left hand feels only pinpricks — “like a thousand needles,” she says. Her hands hurt every day, but Jacqui doesn’t take painkillers. (The other driver, Reggie Stephey, was arrested and charged with two counts of intoxication manslaughter. He was found guilty in 2001 and served seven years in prison.) As Jacqui’s web site noted, she continued to receive medical treatment for her extensive injuries in Louisville, Kentucky, where she and her father Amadeo lived, and specialists were performing a series of skin grafts and working to rebuild her right hand. Jacqui was eventually able to resume her studies and enroll in intensive English classes, and she established a private bank account to receive donations to help pay her living and medical expenses. On 24 November 2003, Jacqui garnered national attention when she appeared as a guest on The Oprah Winfrey Show, and then again in 2009 when Orpah counted down her most memorable guests of the past 25 years:  Jacqueline Saburido passed away at the age of 40 in April 2019, but she left behind a legacy of inspiring “hope among a legion of followers across the globe” in her roles as a motivational speaker and anti-drunken driving spokeswoman:  “I thought she was the bravest, most courageous person I have ever met,” said Janet Lea, former senior vice president of the Sherry Matthews Group, which organized the campaign for TxDOT. “With all of her injuries, she was still wickedly funny and also willing to speak to anybody who would listen to her about the dangers of drinking and driving.” The TV spot, with Saburido’s before and after images, “was a real punch in the gut,” Lea said. “It just went nuts. She got thousands and thousands and thousands of letters and was interviewed by media all over the world.” An educational kit, which included a video and a teacher’s guide, was sent to every middle and high school in Texas. Bentley Nettles, executive director of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, said: “Jacqui did not let the tragic circumstances of her accident diminish her, instead using her life story as a lesson on the importance of preventing drunken driving. We are eternally grateful for Jacqui’s bravery, her compassion and her drive to help others. Saburido was featured in safety campaigns as far away as Australia, her scarred face persuading a generation of students that drunken driving has consequences. Claim: Jacqueline Saburido, the victim of a drunk driving accident, seeks donations to help with the expenses of medical treatment for her extensive injuries.

Ex Output:
1


Ex Input:
Paragraph: The story does not say how much this new procedure costs or compare it with existing treatments for patients who don’t respond to medication. Deep brain stimulation, the current treatment standard, can run anywhere from $30,000 to $70,000, according to various online cost estimates. There also may be additional costs incurred by those patients who have adverse effects. The story is long on description but short on numbers. Saying the treatment “has had an immense impact on patients’ lives,” the story devotes quite a bit of print along with video footage to show rapid functional and quality-of-life improvements experienced by patients, focusing on one women who said her tremor “has almost disappeared” since she had the procedure in June. Video showing this patient before and after treatment–including her attempts to write her name, trace a spiral and pour water from one cup to another–do a great job of conveying the improvements. This is terrific news for this woman, but we’re not told how representative her experience is of overall outcomes. Is she a best-case scenario? Middle of the road? There are also inspiring quotes from a researcher, including a description of the “remarkable moment” patients experience when they realized the tremor has subsided. “They can write their names again, they can feed themselves, they are not embarrassed about being in public. So it really is extraordinarily helpful for people,” he says. In terms of study data, the story says researchers “found that the severity of essential tremor reduced significantly” in patients who underwent the treatment as well as reported improvements in quality of life. But there are no figures. In fact, according to the study, patients experienced a 47 percent improvement in tremor scores, dropping from 18.1 points on a 32-point scale at baseline to 9.6 points three months after the procedure. That data should have been included. Also, the story should have spelled out that 56 patients received the treatment, versus 20 who experienced a fake procedure. Also worth pointing out: We don’t know the meaning or clinical significance of a reduction of this magnitude in the total score. The story addresses adverse effects, and that’s sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. We do wish the story had quantified the harms that were measured in the study. The fourth paragraph says the procedure “brings lasting side effects in some patients” and later the story quotes a physician who is not involved in the research as saying, “It’s a pretty high incidence of side effects.” But nowhere do exact numbers appear. Rather than citing data from the study, the story quotes the physician as saying that “over a third of patients actually experienced either gait disturbance or paresthesia,” or numbness. This information isn’t very useful because the story does not explain when these rates were measured. According to the study, three months after the procedure 36% of patients had gait disturbance and 38% had numbness. After 12 months, the numbers dropped, to 9 percent and 14 percent respectively. Also worth mentioning is that one patient was reported to have permanent diminished sensation of the dominant thumb and index figure, which was categorized as a serious adverse event. That did not appear in the story. The story clearly spells out that there isn’t data on the long-term efficacy of this procedure, and that more study is needed, so we’ll give this a barely passing Satisfactory. Several important study limitations were not included in the story, such as the fact that the treatment did not provide significant improvement for some types of tremors, and the treatment is not appropriate for people who are unwilling or unable to undergo an MRI. We’re also not told that the sham group was only followed for 3 months, while the experimental group was followed for a year. This is not usually recommended in clinical trials and both groups should be followed for the same length of time. The story cites a figure from the International Essential Tremor Foundation, an advocacy group, that an estimated 10 million people in the United States suffer from the condition. However, a 2014 analysis of existing research put the number of cases at around 7 million as of 2012, or about 2.2% of the U.S. population. While this may not qualify as disease mongering, the story could have pointed out that the exact number of cases isn’t clear. Also, the story should have noted that not all people with essential tremor have symptoms severe enough to require treatment. The story only fulfills part of our criteria. It does use one independent source, a physician who was not involved in the study. It also accurately reports the trial’s funding sources: InSightec, which developed the device; along with Focused Ultrasound Foundation, which is funded by device makers and philanthropic organizations; and the Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation, an Israel-U.S. government partnership that receives corporate support. However, the story falls short because it does not report the fact that nine of the study authors reported conflicts of interest, with most receiving financial compensation of some sort from device makers in the field. Lead researcher G. Rees Cosgrove, M.D. who is quoted in the story, reported receiving consulting fees from InSightec. The story states, “Doctors usually treat essential tremor with medication, but the drugs don’t work well for all patients.” That’s true, and so we’ll give this a Satisfactory rating for at least mentioning alternatives. But it should be noted that other procedural treatment options were not compared or even mentioned in the story and received only a brief mention in one of the videos. The current standard for tremor patients who don’t respond to medication is deep-brain stimulation, in which a probe connected to a pacemaker is implanted in the thalamus to suppress the tremors. Gamma Knife thalamotomy, which delivers precise doses of radiation to the thalamus, is also considered to be a safe and effective therapy for patients who don’t respond to medication. Also, some patients have mild symptoms that can be treated with relaxation techniques and the avoidance of triggers such as caffeine. The story states that the device was approved by the FDA in July. The story could have done readers a service by giving a sense of how many medical centers around the country are geared up to perform the procedure, or will be soon. This is indeed a new treatment option for essential tremor, though the story may leave readers with the false impression that the concept of killing off neurons in the thalamus is new. Rather, it’s the use of focused ultrasound to destroy brain tissue, rather than a probe inserted in the brain, that constitutes an advance. The story does not appear to rely solely on the news release, which we also reviewed. Claim: New treatment offers some hope for an unshakable tremor

Ex Output:
2


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The mid-pandemic election in Wisconsin yielded no shortage of bizarre storylines. But a noteworthy one emerged late in the day when President Donald Trump tried to put himself at the center of a debate over whether the election should have even been held as scheduled. The April 7, 2020, contest featured a Democratic presidential primary and a Wisconsin Supreme Court race between conservative-backed Daniel Kelly and liberal-backed Jill Karofsky, as well as numerous local elections. At his daily briefing that day, Trump connected his endorsement of Kelly to Gov. Tony Evers’ last-minute attempt to change the election. The implication was Democrats thought they’d have a better chance of boosting Karofsky by extending the election period. Here’s an excerpt of Trump’s extended discussion on the topic: ""(Wisconsin Democrats) didn't want to move the election. As soon as I endorsed him, the Wisconsin Democrats say, ‘Oh, let's move the election to two months later, three.’ They didn't mind having the election until I endorsed him, which is very interesting."" So Trump is saying his endorsement caused Evers to try moving the election back two months. Let’s take a closer look at that timeline. In case you lost track of the election back-and-forth, the basics are these: Evers had said for weeks he didn’t have the authority to move the election on his own. Then on Friday — four days before the election — he called on the Republican Legislature to switch to an all-mail election that would allow votes to come in through May 19, 2020. He also ordered a special session of the Legislature for the following day to take up the matter. The state Assembly and Senate both gaveled out of that session in seconds, without taking action. Then, 18 hours before polls opened, Evers issued an order to delay the election to June 9, 2020. Republicans appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where the conservative majority overturned Evers’ order, clearing the way to hold the election. Trump is claiming his endorsement of Kelly was a pivotal moment in this back-and-forth. Trump sent a tweet at 12:12 p.m. April 3, 2020, saying Kelly has his ""complete endorsement."" Evers’ call for a mail-in election was released about an hour later. But that’s a coincidence. Here’s why Trump is wrong. Evers’ call at that point was not to move the election by two months, but to switch the format to mail-in only and extend the deadline to May. The attempt to move the in-person election to June didn’t come until several days later. And the Evers’ administration had been moving toward that mail-in announcement well before Trump’s tweet, including calls to Republican leaders, said Evers spokeswoman Melissa Baldauff. But there’s a much more glaring oversight from Trump. He had already endorsed Kelly several months earlier. At a rally in Milwaukee on Jan. 14, 2020, Trump urged his supporters to ""go vote for Justice Daniel Kelly to defend the rule of law."" At that time, of course, coronavirus was barely a blip on the national radar. And it was the pandemic that fueled the back-and-forth over Wisconsin’s election, not a repeat of a prior endorsement. In a statement later on Election Day, Evers said Trump was not a factor in his decision-making. ""I don’t pay any attention to who the president endorses,"" the governor said. ""Frankly, my focus right now is on keeping the people of this state safe, and that’s why I issued an executive order to extend Wisconsin’s election date and make sure everyone could vote safely from home."" Trump claims his endorsement of Kelly caused the Wisconsin attempts to push the election back until June. That’s not at all how it happened. Trump had already endorsed Kelly back in January. And in any case, the action from Evers that coincidentally followed Trump’s reiterated endorsement on Twitter was to shift to a mail-in election, not to move the whole election by several months. That leaves us with a claim that is both false and ridiculous." Claim: “As soon as I endorsed (Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly), the Wisconsin Democrats said, let’s move the election to two months later.”

Ex Output:

0