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'.
One example is below.
Q: Paragraph: While the financial costs of screening mammography&!1-positive recalls&biopsies were not included in the study,readers would benefit from being reminded that recall mammography&biopsies increase patient financial costs.This article leads with valuable information for all women over age 40 by stating "Getting screening mammograms every two years instead of annually reduces the chance of a!1 alarm,a new study shows." Unfortunately the writer doesn't quantify or elaborate adequately on that reduction.Instead,the writer later focuses on how women undergoing screening mammography shouldn't be anxious if they experience a recall because over half of women who have screening mammograms for 10 years will be recalled.Readers would have been better served if the writer had emphasized the significant reduction in both recall mammograms&!1-positive biopsies in women who are screened every two years rather than annually.Part of the continuing controversy over screening mammography focuses on annual versus biennial screening.Because this study showed a significant reduction in the percentage of those recalled&needing biopsies among women who are screened every other year,with no statistically significant increase in late-stage diagnosis of breast cancer,the article should have emphasized those important findings.The piece states that the researchers noted that "!1 positive recalls may cause inconvenience&anxiety and biopsies can cause pain and scarring." This article fails to include several important facts about the study.1)This is a prospective cohort study of women screened between 1994-2006.2)Most of the mammograms were film rather than digital.3)Few women underwent screening for the entire 10 year period.4)Screening mammography recall rates are influenced by the skill of the radiologists who read the mammograms.There was no disease mongering.No independent experts were quoted.The story did an adequate job comparing at a very high level annual screening versus biennial screening.Screening mammography is widely available throughout the United States.The study did not examine a new procedure.There's no evidence that the story relied solely on a news release.
Claim: Annual Mammograms May Have More False-Positives
A: 1
Rationale: This article reports on the results of a study of nearly 170,0 women who had screening mammograms beginning between age 40-59.The study found that over ten years of screening mammograms,over half of the women will experience a!1-positive recall for additional mammography.In addition,7%-9%of the women will have a biopsy for a suspicious lump which is not cancerous.Both of those percentages decrease if the woman is screened every other year rather than every year.Even with biennial mammography,41%of women will experience a recall over 10 years of mammography.The study's Principal Investigator emphasized that "in most cases,a recall doesn't mean you have cancer." She hoped this knowledge would reduce the anxiety of women who are recalled.The story never explained the size of the decrease in the number of!1 positives between annual(61.3%) and biennial screening(41.6%).Our first two reviewers were a researcher who specializes in health decisions and a breast cancer survivor trained in evidence by the Natiional Breast Cancer Coalition's Project LEAD.This study is valuable because it helps to quantify and compare the harms of annual and biennial screening,specifically the number of!1 positives and the number of unnecessary biopsies.Prior to this study,estimates of!1 positive screening mammography rates varied widely.The critical question is whether you can do less frequent screening,subject women to fewer harms and get similar results in terms of detection of "early stage" cancer.This study's data seems to suggest that answer is yes.
Q: Paragraph: "The General Assembly on April 3 narrowly approved an amendment by Gov. Bob McDonnell that will ban insurers participating in an upcoming federal health care exchange in Virginia from offering policies that cover most abortions. The action was disappointing to NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia. The group said, among other things, that McDonnell's proposal would force the exchange to offer more restrictive coverage than most private insurance plans. ""McDonnell's amendment prohibits Virginians participating in the new health exchange from purchasing any insurance plan that includes coverage for abortion -- coverage that currently exists as a standard benefit in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S.,"" NARAL said in a March 26 news release. Two Democrats running for lieutenant governor -- state Sen. Ralph Northam of Norfolk and Aneesh Chopra, former U.S. chief technology officer of the United States -- quickly sent out similar statements. We decided to check NARAL's claim that abortion coverage is standard in almost 90 percent of the private plans now being sold. We should note McDonnell's amendment has an exception that allows insurance companies on the exchange to cover abortions in instances of rape, incest or when a mother's life would be endangered by continuing a pregnancy. NARAL said it got the figure from a 2004 report by the Guttmacher Institute, an organization based in New York City that specializes in research on reproductive health issues. Although Guttmacher supports access to abortion and birth control, its research has been cited by both sides of the abortion debate. NARAL cited a Guttmacher synopsis that says the study examined abortion coverage through private insurance in 2002. It found that 87 percent of typical employer-based policies back then covered ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions."" Rebecca Wind, a spokeswoman for the Guttmacher Institute, said the definition of ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions"" is whatever a physician deems is required to protect the ""health or mental health of the patient."" Guttmacher said its figure on private insurance coverage for abortion did not consider plans that offered benefits only in limited circumstances such as cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of a mother. But the Guttmacher memo also noted another survey examining the issue came up with different results. That study, by Kaiser Family Foundation, found in 2003 that 46 percent of workers with employer-based insurance had coverage for abortion. The Guttmacher and Kaiser studies conducted early last decade offer the only detailed looks available on abortion coverage. Experts have not reconciled the difference in results. We spoke to Jon Gabel, a researcher who helped compile the 2003 Kaiser survey and now is a senior fellow at NORC, a social science research foundation at the University of Chicago. He said the 46 percent Kaiser cited refers to workers who were covered for ""elective abortions"" that did not involve a medical emergency. Gabel said he interpreted Guttmacher's study as an examination of abortion coverage for medical necessity. Guttmacher, in a 2011 memo, essentially said the two studies asked different sets of questions that may have led to the different results. Guttmacher did not defend its original finding as definitive. ""The actual level of coverage is probably somewhere between the estimates made by Guttmacher and Kaiser, meaning that most Americans with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion,"" the memo said. Our ruling NARAL said McDonnell's amendment banning an upcoming health care exchange from offering insurance plans that include abortion denies Virginians ""coverage that currently exists as a standard benefit in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S."" NARAL bases its claim on a 9-year-old study by the Guttmacher Institute that found 87 percent of typical of typical employer-based insurance policies covered ""medically necessary or appropriate abortions."" Contrary to NARAL's contention, the findings do not reflect coverage ""that currently exists."" The research focused on policies that were offered in 2002. Guttmacher never updated its report. The only other major research on abortion coverage was conducted by Kaiser in early 2003 and produced a different result. It found that 46 percent of workers with employer-based insurance had coverage for abortions. Experts have struggled to reconcile the two numbers. Guttmacher, in 2011, said that the ""actual level of coverage is probably somewhere between"" its estimate and that of Kaiser. So NARAL is citing as gospel an old figure that even its authors undercut." Claim: "Abortion coverage is a standard insurance benefit ""in nearly 90 percent of private plans sold in the U.S."
A:
0