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 verdict, in California Superior Court in Oakland, marks the latest defeat for the healthcare conglomerate facing more than 13,000 talc-related lawsuits nationwide. J&J said it would appeal, citing "serious procedural and evidentiary errors" in the course of the trial, saying lawyers for the woman had fundamentally failed to show its baby powder contains asbestos. The company did not providefurther details of thealleged errors during the trial. "We respect the legal process and reiterate that jury verdicts are not medical, scientific or regulatory conclusions about a product," J&J said in a statement on Wednesday. The New Brunswick, New Jersey-based company denies that its talc causes cancer, saying numerous studies and tests by regulators worldwide have shown that its talc is safe and asbestos-free. The lawsuit was brought by Terry Leavitt, who said she used Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower - another powder containing talc sold by J&J in the past - in the 1960s and 1970s and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2017. It was the first of more than a dozen J&J talc cases scheduled for trial in 2019. The nine-week trial began on Jan. 7 and included testimony from nearly a dozen experts on both sides. The jury deliberated for two days before delivering its verdict, which was broadcast online by Courtroom View Network. Jurors found that J&J's talc-based products used by Leavitt were defective and that the company had failed to warn consumers of the health risks, awarding$29.4 million in damages to Leavitt and her husband. The jury declined to award punitive damages. "Yet another jury has rejected J&J's misleading claims that its talc was free of asbestos," said Moshe Maimon, a lawyer for Leavitt, in a statement on Wednesday. "The internal J&J documents that the jury saw, once more laid bare the shocking truth of decades of cover- up, deception and concealment by J&J." Leavitt's was the first talc case to go to trial since Reuters on Dec. 14 published a report detailing that J&J knew that the talc in its raw and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos from the 1970s into the early 2000s - test results it did not disclose to regulators or consumers. Leavitt's trial originally included J&J's talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, a unit of Imerys SE, as a co-defendant. CaliforniaSuperior Court JudgeBrad Seligman, who oversaw the trial,told jurors in February thatthe company was no longer part of the case after it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection under the weight of the talc litigation, whichstayed lawsuits against it. While earlier talc lawsuits alleged talc itself causes ovarian cancer, plaintiffs' lawyers have more recently focused on arguing asbestos contamination in talc caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, a form of cancer linked to asbestos exposure. In 11 cases so far alleging asbestos contamination in talc, three have resulted in wins for plaintiffs, awarding damages as high as $4.69 billion in a July 2018 multi-plaintiff ovarian cancer verdict. J&J won three other cases and another five ended in hung juries. J&J has appealed all of the plaintiff verdicts, and the company said it is confident the verdicts would be overturned on appeal. (Read the documents that sparked the investigation - here) Claim: Facebook post Says the CEO of Camping World told Trump supporters "Frankly, don't shop at my business."
A:
0