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: The article doesn't discuss what the study authors new "way" of assessment might add in the way of costs. The story didn't provide any data to give a sense of the potential benefit of the new approach. No numbers were given to explain how well it worked. Because there is so little information about the imaging technique and what it requires, it's hard to say what the harms or benefits might be, but certainly the story might have mentioned the potential risk of drug intervention (or non-intervention) if the inflammatory cell "marker" is valid as a predictor of heart attack risk. Also, it would have been worth discussing if the new imaging technique exposes patients to radiation, which has been shown to increase the risk of cancer if used repeatedly. The story does not adequately establish the quality of the evidence, except to indicate that more research is needed, implying that this is preliminary work. From the journal article itself: "The main limitation of this study is the lack of data demonstrating a predictive value of these imaging markers for clinical outcomes, which falls beyond the scope of this current work." There was no such caveat in the news story. Rather, the headline trumpets that it "May Predict Heart Attacks." No disease mongering here. The story stated that "about 750,000 Americans have a heart attack every year." The article appears to quote only those who conducted the study. The article does describe current means of assessing heart attack risk, as well as some interventions (surgical and medical) to address those risks. However, the article doesn't mention how this new technique would stack up against standardtestslike stress tests or nuclear perfusion scans. There also is the option of simply treating people with risk factors and not utilizing imaging tests. The story explains that more research is needed before the technology might be available to everyone. The story focuses on the use of inflammatory heart tissue as having potentially better predictive value than current risk assessment tools for heart attack. But it's a reluctant satisfactory, because the narrative is confusing and nonumbers were given to estimate the scope of the potential benefithow well the new approach worked. We could not locate a release from the University of Oxford or Science Translational Medicine. Claim: New Heart Imaging Method May Predict Heart Attack

Ex Output:
0

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Rhode Island has issued a controversial vaccination requirement designed to fight HPV, or human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cancer. The requirement, ordered by the Rhode Island Department of Health, took effect Aug. 1. It has drawn fire from a group of critics that included the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, which calls itself a ""free enterprise think tank."" The new policy calls for the vaccination of all seventh grade boys and girls before the start of school. The requirement does not apply to students whose doctors cite a medical problem; or to students whose parents object for religious reasons. And the health department defines religious reasons very liberally. Before a series of public information meetings on the vaccination requirement, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity posted this statement on its website: ""Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people."" We telephoned Mike Stenhouse, the center's founder and chief executive officer, and asked him for his sources. We didn't get anything from him right away. So we did our own research and found that Virginia is the only other state to require students to receive immunization for HPV. Virginia's vaccination requirement, which is only for sixth-grade girls, took effect in 2008 following an act of the legislature. Rhode Island's policy is the product of a regulatory process that began in 2013 under the leadership of Michael Fine, then the state's director of the Department of Health. In both states, HPV vaccination policies use the word ""required"" and both have opt-out provisions. In Virginia, parents have ""sole discretion"" on whether their children receive the vaccination. Stenhouse labels the policies in Virginia and Rhode Island as mandates. But Jason L. Schwartz, an assistant professor at the Yale University School of Public Health, says you can't call policies with such liberal exemptions mandates. The breadth of Rhode Island's opt-out provisions may not have been clear to the public or to Stenhouse before a public meeting Aug. 5. That's when Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott, the new director of the Department of Health, told parents that their philosophical objections would qualify for the religious exemption spelled out in the regulations. But what about the center's claim that Rhode Island imposed the requirement by ""regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people""? And, as the center says later in its policy statement, was the health department's decision an example of ""regulatory despotism"" that ""bypasses the traditional democratic process""? While it's true that the General Assembly did not pass a law for the HPV vaccination, existing Rhode Island law gives the health director the power to adopt regulations to protect public health. And, of course, the health director is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the governor. Further, control of health-care policy by the executive branch is common in the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for example, makes decisions affecting the health welfare of the country without first getting an act of Congress. ""To say it's anti-democratic would be a misunderstanding of how we structure our government in the United States,"" says Schwartz, the Yale professor, who co-authored a recent article about state vaccination requirements for the Journal of the American Medical Association. Also it's not as if the state adopted the regulation in a back room somewhere even though Stenhouse's organization on July 30 described the news of the requirement as a ""stunning revelation."" On Dec. 2, 2013, Fine, the former health director, filed a notice of public hearing for Jan. 16, 2014, and also solicited written statements on the issue. In response to criticism, the department delayed the beginning of the program from Aug. 1, 2014, to Aug. 1, 2015, according to a form for the regulation that was filed with the Office of Secretary of State Nellie M. Gorbea. The Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union registered its ardent opposition to the proposed regulation at the hearing and in written comments. On Jan. 27, 2014, the ACLU called on the health department to reconsider the proposal. The ACLU also criticized the requirement on Facebook. That's seems like debate to us. We tried to get Stenhouse to explain what the center meant by the phrase ""regulatory fiat."" He declined. Instead, he sent us a written statement in which he said the center ""stands by its statement"" and he challenged PolitiFact's fairness and objectivity. Our ruling The center says ""Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people."" The center, in its statement, got two things right and two things wrong. It was right about Rhode Island being the second state and it was right that the requirement was not adopted by ""the elected representatives of the people."" It was wrong when it said the vaccination requirement was imposed ""by fiat"" and ""without public debate."" In 2014, the ACLU sharply criticized the vaccine requirement at the public hearing and debated the proposal in social media and on its website. As for acting by fiat, the regulation was put in place through a process established by law. And comments at a public hearing influenced that process, leading to a decision by the director of health to delay execution of the policy for one year. More recently, the new health director told the public that philosophical objections were enough to qualify for the religious exemption. In other words, parents can pretty much say whatever they want to get exemptions for their children. For those reasons, (If you have a claim you'd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at [emailprotected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)" Claim: Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people.

Ex Output:
1

Ex Input:
Paragraph: "The article includes price information for the drug's likely competitor, Plavixabout $4 per day, a significant cost for a drug that is taken daily, perhaps for a lifetime. The article correctly indicates that the price of Plavix is likely to come down when it goes generic in four years. The article properly includes speculation that the pricing of prasugrel may be a key factor in its adoption, should it be approved. The reporter includes considerable data about several key clinical endpoints of both benefits and harms, in two cases using both absolute numbers of patients and percentage increase or descrease. The reporter gets extra points for including ""number needed to treat""the number of people who would have clinically significant outcomes for each 1,000 treated with the drug. The story is built around the question of the drugs' risks vs. benefits. Data about harms are mentioned early and often, and described in detail. A direct comparision of the fatal bleeding rates for the two drugs would have been additionally useful. The New England Journal of Medicine article is based on results of a Phase III trial that appears to meet all the important criteria for significance: the study is prospective, the study group is large, the patients were randomized, the treatments double-blinded, the clinical endpoints signficant. While there is no placebo group, this was likely decided for ethical reasons, so all patients in the study would receive at least current best-practice treatment. The article assigns proper crediblity to the study, which to appear in NEJM has received rigorous peer review. The article does nothing to exaggerate the risk of death or the consequences of heart attacks, strokes or cardiovascular disease deaths. It allows the outcome figures to speak for themselves. The article quotes five experts in cardiology from different institutions, providing greater balance and context than just one or two experts would. In each case the relationship of the souce to the study and/or its funders is revealed. The considerable conflicts of interest of the investigators are made very clear. The article makes clear that prasugrel is being developed as an option to Plavix, and that Plavix with aspirin is currently best-practice treatment. The article makes clear that the drug prasugrel is not FDA approved and that its approval is uncertain. The article makes clear that this is a drug that is very similar to Plavix, and that it may be marginally more effective. No claims of novelty are made. The companies' joint press release, an enthusiastic announcement about the drug's benefits, bears little resemblance to this story." Claim: Blood drug trades benefit for risk

Ex Output:
2