In this task, you are given a paragraph (from a research paper) and your task is to classify each sentence of the paragraph (assume n sentence) into the following categories: Background, Purpose, Method, Finding/Contribution, or Other. Return the output in this format: 1 - category of sentence 1, 2 - category of sentence 2, ..., n - category of sentence n; where each number indicates the order of the sentence. The categories can be identified using the following questions: 
 Background: - Why is this problem important? - What relevant works have been done before? - What did the previous works miss? - What are the high-level research questions? - How might this help other researchers?
 Purpose: - What specific things do the researchers want to do? - What specific knowledge do the researchers want to know? - What specific hypothesis do the researchers want to test?
 Method: - How did the researchers do it or find it out? - What are the procedures and steps of this research?
 Finding/Contribution: - What did the researchers find out? Did the proposed methods work? - Did things behave as the researchers expected?
Other: put every text fragment that does not fit into any of the categories above here. Put a sentence here if its not in English, is not part of the article, contains numbers and dates, is a caption of a figure or a table, is a formatting error, or you are not sure about it.

Example Input: Background: Despite current knowledge of mutations in 45 genes that can cause nonsyndromic sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), no unified clinical test has been developed that can comprehensively detect mutations in multiple genes. We therefore designed Affymetrix resequencing microarrays capable of resequencing 13 genes mutated in SNHL (GJB2, GJB6, CDH23, KCNE1, KCNQ1, MYO7A, OTOF, PDS, MYO6, SLC26A5, TMIE, TMPRSS3, USH1C). We present results from hearing loss arrays developed in two different research facilities and highlight some of the approaches we adopted to enhance the applicability of resequencing arrays in a clinical setting. Results: We leveraged sequence and intensity pattern features responsible for diminished coverage and accuracy and developed a novel algorithm, sPROFILER, which resolved >80% of no-calls from GSEQ and allowed 99.6% (range: 99.2-99.8%) of sequence to be called, while maintaining overall accuracy at >99.8% based upon dideoxy sequencing comparison. Conclusions: Together, these findings provide insight into critical issues for disease-centered resequencing protocols suitable for clinical application and support the use of array-based resequencing technology as a valuable molecular diagnostic tool for pediatric SNHL and other genetic diseases with substantial genetic heterogeneity.
Example Output: 1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - method, 4 - method, 5 - finding, 6 - finding, 7 - finding, 8 - finding

Example Input: Attaching and effacing Escherichia coli are involved in diarrhea in 2 to 8-week old calves. The virulence factors of these bacteria include: (i) the secretion of proteins (i.e. EspB) involved in microvilli effacement, (ii) the production of the intimin, a 94 kDa outer membrane protein encoded by the eaeA gene and involved in the intimate attachment of bacteria to epithelial cell and (iii) the production of verotoxins: VT1 and/or VT2. We investigated the presence and the pathotype of these strains in several calf populations by colony hybridization or by genetic amplification. Using the colony hybridization method we showed first that only 5% of calves who died from diarrhea presented EaeA E. coli strains and secondly that 19% of healthy calves showed an asymptomatic carriage. However, using colony hybridization and genetic amplification, we identified EaeA strains in 91% of calves living in farms with recurrent diarrhea problems. In 66% of the calves, there was a correlation between the presence of AEEC and diarrhea. At the pathotype level, most of the EaeA isolates were negative for VT probes. In VT bacteria, the majority were VT1. The number of VT positive bacteria was significantly higher in calves who died from diarrhea than in healthy or sick calves. This underlined the aggravating role of verotoxins in the disease. Moreover, only 25% of the bovine AEEC were positive with the EaeB probe. Surprisingly, the proportion of EaeB strains was significantly higher in healthy calves than in other populations. # 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Example Output: 1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - background, 4 - background, 5 - purpose, 6 - method, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding, 13 - finding, 14 - finding, 15 - finding, 16 - finding, 17 - finding

Example Input: European populations of free-living wildcats have been shown to be exposed to cat viruses. Luxembourg has a high degree of habitat fragmentation, and hybridisation rates between domestic cats and wildcats are high. We therefore assessed the seroprevalence of six viruses in 34 serum samples collected between 2001 and 2016 from wildcats in Luxembourg. The values for feline leukemia virus (FeLV; 52.9%) and feline coronavirus (FCoV; 47.1%) were amongst the highest reported for wildcats. We found evidence for the cumulative likelihood of exposure to FCoV affecting its seroprevalence. Routine monitoring of viral agents in this strictly protected species should be considered.
Example Output:
1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - background, 4 - purpose, 5 - finding, 6 - finding, 7 - finding

