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: As the criminal case moves toward possible trial this year, related pending lawsuits reflect a battle over blame. A look at where things stand: THE ALLEGATIONS The Columbus-area Mount Carmel Health System determined William Husel ordered excessive doses for nearly three dozen patients over several years, though it said the doses likely weren't what caused six of those deaths. Reviewers found that in many cases, the drugs were accessed by overriding a dispensing system. Husel was fired in December 2018, weeks after a concern was raised. Mount Carmel later said three patients died during those weeks after receiving excessive doses he ordered. ___ CRIMINAL CASE Last June, Husel was charged with murder in 25 deaths and pleaded not guilty in one of the biggest cases of its kind ever brought against a U.S. health care professional. He was charged only in cases involving 500 to 2,000 micrograms of the powerful painkiller fentanyl doses so unusually large that prosecutors said it indicated an intent to snuff out lives. His initial lawyer said Husel was providing comfort care to dying patients, not trying to kill them. Husel's current lawyers in the criminal case including Florida-based Jose Baez, who is known for successfully defending high-profile clients such as Casey Anthony and Aaron Hernandez haven't said much publicly about his motives. Husel's lawyers in civil cases contend that he provided appropriate care and that Mount Carmel misled the public about what happened. Mount Carmel publicly apologized, tightened its drug policies, fired other employees and changed leadership but has stood by its investigation and subsequent decisions. "There is nothing more important to us than our patients' safety and their trust in us and we will do everything in our power to continue to improve," it said in an emailed statement Tuesday. Trial for Husel, 44, is currently scheduled for June. _____ LOTS OF LAWSUITS More than 30 lawsuits have been filed against Mount Carmel in the matter, and it has agreed to more than $13 million in related settlements so far. Husel and Mount Carmel unsuccessfully argued the remaining lawsuits should be put on hold until the criminal case is resolved. Husel also has filed lawsuits. One against Mount Carmel and its parent company, Michigan-based Trinity Health, alleges defamation. Another against Trinity and its insurer seeks to force them to cover costs of his defense in the criminal case, just as in civil cases against him. _____ FORMER COLLEAGUES Authorities aren't prosecuting those who administered the drugs, though they have faced other fallout. Mount Carmel said it fired 23 nurses, pharmacists and managers after its internal investigation. Ten of Husel's former colleagues recently sued Mount Carmel for defamation and, in some cases, wrongful termination. The group of mostly nurses decried a " false narrative of an evil rogue doctor and his complicit staff" and said the spread of that narrative damaged their lives and livelihoods regardless of whether they were fired. Three pharmacists and 25 nurses still face potential disciplinary action from their respective state boards and have administrative hearings scheduled in the coming months. Husel is in line for one, too, after the Ohio State Medical Board suspended his license. It hadn't previously disciplined him. ___ Follow Franko on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/kantele10. Claim: Amid doc's murder case, lawsuits reflect battle over blame.

Ex Output:
2

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The story makes no mention of costs. Instead by saying, "could be on the market and available for thousands of patients in about five years' time" it leaves readers with the impression that cost is not an issue. This is exactly the kind of device that an insurance company might put on its "ineligible" list. A quick review of the business media suggests the cost of the device will exceed $75,000 if it becomes commercially available. according to this Medical Device Technology Alert. It is hard to imagine why this important fact was overlooked in the story. Beyond saying in the lead that three people were able to "see shapes and objects," there is not much else in the story to help readers understand the levels of vision improvements that were seen and how those should be compared to the preexisting conditions or other treatments. Then, confusingly, the story narrows its focus to just one patient saying, "one blind patient who had the device implanted was able to identify and find objects placed on a table in front of him, and was able to walk around a room independently. He could even read a clock face and differentiate between seven shades of grey, the researchers said. Tests were conducted starting from seven to nine days after the device was implanted." It's tough when writing a story about a study this small to put hard numbers to the benefits, but even some acknowledgment of this limitation would have been better than some of the overly optimistic sentiments expressed. The study itself and the press released provided more ways for the story to quantify the benefits. The story provides absolutely no information on the implant requirements for the devicenor the potential downsides associated with this surgical procedure. There are some caveats tossed into this story, but they can't overcome the hype. The story says in the lead thatthe implant "allowed three blind patients to see shapes and objects within days of treatment". The next sentence says,"Experts described the study results as phenomenal". The story does deserve credit for saying in the lead that only "three blind patients" saw vision improvement, but the story does little else to describe the limitations of the study or to place it in any context. The story engages in disease mongeringby throwing in some sketchy numbers about the frequency of the disease. It says the device "could eventually change the lives of up to 200,000 people worldwide who suffer from blindness due to a degenerative eye disease called retinitis pigmentosa." Later it says, "Retinitis pigmentosa in a genetic eye condition that leads to blindness and affects about 1 in 4,000 people worldwide." By our math, 200,000 out of 6.8 billion people worldwide means that 1 out of every 34,500 people is affected. And if we're just talking about adults, that number drops to 1 out of every 22,105 people, a far cry from 1 out of every 4,000. If it were truly one out of every 4,000 people worldwide, that would mean that 1.1 million people have the disease. The story does quote one presumed independent source, Robert Maclaren, a professor of Ophthalmology at Britain's Oxford University. In the above mentioned Medical Technology Alert, the manufacturer announced that Dr. Maclaren will be the lead investigator on a clinical study expected to enrollsix subjects to advance this same retinal implant technology. As a result, Dr. Maclaren can hardly be described as an independent expert. Overall, we felt that the story was missing a strong, independent analysis. Had the reporter talked with more researchers in the field or more clinicians, perhaps the story would have had a more thoughtful tone. The story mentions that there are other implants, saying, "Other types of retinal implants, known as epiretinal implants, sit outside the retina and because they bypass the intact light-sensitive structures in the eyes they require the patient to wear an external camera and processor unit." But that's not a true comparison, nor does it provide readers with the true picture of how much R&D is happening right now in this field. As is often the case in medicine, surgical options and devices are not the only solution. Lowly old Vitamin A is often the first step for treating retinitis pigmentosa. The story does a credible job noting that the device is under study and not commercially available. Unfortunately it also suggests, based on the manufacturer's statement, that the device in a very early stage of development will be available in 5 years. The hyperbole used is indefensible "the device could become routine for some kinds of blindness in five years"and "could eventually change the lives of up to 200,000 people worldwide." This comes after a test in 3 people. The novelty of the device is established. The story does not rely ona news release, and, in fact, this news release from the University of Tubingen contains more interesting information about the study than the story. Claim: Retinal implant trial helps blind people see shapes

Ex Output:
0

Ex Input:
Paragraph: There was no mentioned of costs and that's a big issue. The costs of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors ($3/pill) and PD5-inhibitors (> $10/pill) are rather high compared to alpha blocker such as terazosin and doxazosin ($0.5 to 1.5). Avodart and Tamsulosin are not more effective than finasteride (now a generic) and terazosin/doxazosin, just newer and more expensive. While discussing the symptoms associated with benign prostate hyperplasia, it provide little quantitative information either about how common the various types of symptoms are or the extent to which the various medications and medication combinations relieved these symptoms. The story also did not provide data on the proportion of men who benefit, the magnitude of treatment benefit for symptom relief, quality of life, or preventing complications from BPH progression. The only other evidence was that Botox reduces prostate volume by 15%a finding of uncertain clinical significance. The story did not explicitly note the most clinically important benefits of preventing BPH progressionreducing the risks for surgery, renal insufficiency, and urinary retention. The story did not mention any harms that might be associated with the use of 8 of the 9 medications discussed (though the description of the tolterodine study does note the potential for urinary retention); nor any possible harms associated with combined use of the various medications mentioned. The story mentioned a number of studies and extrapolated results from studies with one drug to others using a different drug, albeit of the same class. It is incorrect to assume that all drugs within a class will have the same magnitude of benefit, or even the same harms associated with their use. This story engaged in disease mongering. It leads with the concern that with increasing age, men experience a steady enlargement of the prostate gland. While this may be the case, it is not always a condition that mandates intervention. The story then goes on to explain about the symptoms of benign prostate hyperplasia explaining that there are bothersome symptoms and serious symptoms. Yet the reader is not given any information that would enable them to gauge how often the more serious symptoms arise. The story referred to the results of several previously published stories. It included a comment from one of the authors of a high quality study published in a peer reviewed It also made reference to the results to be presented at an upcoming meeting that are from a drug company funded trial. It included a comment from one of the authors of that yet to be presented study. The story mentioned that surgery used to be the gold standard of care for benign prostate hyperplasia but that it is now commonplace for medications to be used to treat symptoms and prevent progression of benign prostate hyperplasia. The story did not mention that it is not always necessary for benign prostate hyperplasia to be actively treated. This is a significant oversight. The story mentioned 9 different medications, included the scientific name for most but not all along with a trade name. However, although there are direct to consumer advertisements for many of the medications mentioned, the story did not explicitly state whether these medications were approved and whether they were prescription or over-the-counter preparations. The story was informative about noninvasive approaches for treatment of the symptoms of benign prostate hyperplasia. However, most of the story focused on drugs that have been in use for years and cited studies 2 5 years old. Does not appear to rely on a press release. Claim: Advances in treatments for enlarged prostates

Ex Output:
0