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: There was no mention of cost. The article reports that “patients with two copies of the arginine variant lived an average 38 percent longer than patients with the glycine variant. Patients with glycine variant didn’t respond to the beta blocker.” Did they live longer whether or not they received bucindolol or not? It is not possible to tell whether the increased mortality in the glycine variant group is due to the effect of having two copies of this allele or whether having two copies of this allele renders a person resistant to the benefits (if any) conferred by bucindolol. And 38% longer is only a relative term. What was the absolute time lived longer? Although side effects of beta-blockers (depression, fatigue, and asthma-related lung problems) were mentioned, it is not clear what the list of side effects found specifically with bucindolol might be. Since the article also discussed an imminent genetic test that might suggest greater risk of death, it could have also discussed the possible impact this sort of information might have on an individual or family. Other than mentioning where the study is published, the article does not provide any information about the nature of the clinical evidence supporting the claims reported. The story says “… heart failure can kill quickly. One in five chronic heart failure patients is dead within a year of being diagnosed and less than half live for more than five years, researchers say. ‘You have a very narrow window before the progression of the disease gets out of hand,’ Liggett said.” The choice of words provides a negative frame: “kill quickly” and “narrow window” convey a sense of urgency that does NOT apply to all patients with heart failure. Some patients with heart failure are asymptomatic and have a much much better prognosis. These numbers really apply only to those with severe symptomatic heart failure. Although the article included a comment from Dr. Blumenthal who was mentioned as “not involved in the study”, he was an investigator on the “Beta-blocker evaluation in survival trial” from which data were reportedly used for the current study. Another clinician, Dr. Mehra, cited as not involved in the current study, is the chairman of the department from which the work originated. Thus it appears that the article does not include comments from researchers who did not have a stake in the findings. The story failed to put the new idea into the context of other currently approved beta-blocker drugs for heart failure, or of other drugs of other classes. The article discusses two unapproved medical interventions: a genetic test and a particular drug for heart failure. The genetic test needed to determine whether bucindolol might be effective is reported as not approved by the FDA but that such approval could be obtained in the next year or two. In reality, it is not possible to predict whether this test will be approved or when. Secondly, the article mentions that researchers hope that drug, bucindolol, will be approved by the FDA. The application for FDA approval has not even been filed yet. The story promotes researchers’ hopes that the FDA will approve the experimental beta blocker (bucindolol) and promotes researchers predictions that a genetic test could be approved by the FDA in the next year or two without any justification for that prediction. The true novelty of either idea is still uNPRoven. There is no evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a news release. However no truly independent sources were interviewed in the story. Claim: Heart drug riddle solved: Beta blockers’ ability to combat chronic failure linked to genetics
A:
0