Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In Table 3, we present the results for the number of vaccine allocations over the 9-week period using a series of linear growth models. The results with this dependent variable reflect a similar pattern to the one described previously with some notable differences. Again, in Model 1, the coefficient for Black clustering is significant and negative, indicating that the higher the degree of concentration and clustering of Blacks across these five counties, the smaller the vaccine allocations week to week. Specifically, every 1 SD increase in Black clustering (648.99) relates to 658.08 fewer vaccine doses per 10,000 people in a ZIP code. The same figure for a 1 SD change in Latino clustering (1,611.93) is 492.66 vaccine doses per 10,000 people, which is not an inconsequential amount, although this coefficient is only significant at the .1 level for Latino clustering. In all subsequent models, the results for Latino clustering are not significant. Concerning the control variables, the results are similar to previous models except that median household income is significant and negative here.

    Claimed Finding:
    Latino clustering remained a robust and statistically significant negative predictor of vaccine-dose allocations across every model estimated.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    When we add the different types of health care establishments to the baseline model, the results are similar in pattern to the results previously described. Once again, the distribution of hospitals and physicians’ offices is significant and positive, meaning that their presence in an area is related to a higher allocation of vaccine doses per 10,000 people. Moreover, the inclusion of these variables weakens the association between the clustering scores and the number of vaccine doses per 10,000 people, especially in the case of Black clustering. Black clustering is only significant in Model 1 and Model 5, and the inclusion of hospitals and physicians’ offices rather substantially reduces the size of those coefficients. These reductions are percentage changes of 19.13%, 41.52%, and 10.55% for hospitals, physicians’ offices, and pharmacies, respectively. Hospitals and physicians’ offices appear to explain away a substantial portion of the differential allocations across areas related to Black clustering. We also see changes in the size of the coefficients for Latino clustering, but this score was only significant at the .1 level in Model 1.

    Claimed Finding:
    Adding hospitals and physicians’ offices to the model substantially reduced the negative effect of Black clustering on vaccine-dose allocation, indicating that health-care infrastructure explains part of the disparity.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Across all models, we also included a control variable for the cumulative number of infections in the ZIP code for all five of our counties. These came from publicly available sources from each county’s public health department. These were collected in each of the five counties on February 9, 2021, which was the second to last week of our vaccine rollout time frame such that it could have affected allocation decisions. We included this as a covariate in the event that state health officials were using the infection rate as the basis by which vaccines were being allocated by factoring in local vulnerability.

    Claimed Finding:
    ZIP codes with higher cumulative COVID-19 infections were granted significantly more vaccine doses during the rollout.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    These findings provide support for Hypothesis 1 for Black and Latino clustering (not Asian clustering). Moreover, this negative association is partially explained by the existing distribution of health care resources across communities, especially hospitals and physicians’ offices. The presence of these establishments is associated with a higher number of vaccine sites, so the lack of these sites in segregated communities means fewer vaccine sites for these areas. However, we do not observe the same association for pharmacies and retirement communities. Indeed, the association for retirement communities is actually significant and negative and appears to have a suppression effect with the racial-ethnic clustering scores. We speculate that this may be because these groups are less likely to use retirement homes for elderly relatives as other work suggests (Dilworth- Anderson, Williams, and Gibson 2002), although we cannot directly test this assertion with the data here. These findings provide partial support for Hypothesis 2, with stronger evidence for the case of Latino clustering.

    Claimed Finding:
    Hospitals and physicians’ offices—but not pharmacies—were positively linked to vaccine-site availability, helping explain disparities tied to Black and Latino clustering.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The findings presented here also point to a much stronger race story than one about socioeconomic dynamics, which is a prominent theme in much of the previous literature on resource allocation across neighborhoods (Beaulac et al. 2009; Ko et al. 2014). In our study, area-level median income was not significant in the first analysis, and in the second analysis, it was significant and negative, meaning that higher income areas were less likely to receive doses. Thus, the story seems to be more about race specifically rather than class, which limited research has also shown (Anderson 2017; Small and McDermott 2006).

    Claimed Finding:
    The analyses indicate that neighborhood income, rather than race, was the primary determinant of where vaccine resources were distributed.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    For the second outcome, we find a similar pattern, although with somewhat weaker effects. Black clustering is again significant and negatively associated with the number of vaccine doses per 10,000 people in a ZIP code over a 9-week period (although this is only significant for Latino clustering at the .1 level), meaning that minority segregated communities were less likely to receive doses of vaccine over this period. This provides further partial support for Hypothesis 1 in the case of Black clustering. And, again, these results are somewhat attenuated with the inclusion of the number of hospitals and physicians’ offices. Both these types of establishments are strongly associated with a higher number of vaccine doses, and they reduce the size of the coefficient for Black clustering. Thus, we find partial support for Hypothesis 2.

    Claimed Finding:
    Even after adjusting for other factors, Black clustered neighborhoods received fewer vaccine doses, but this gap shrank once hospital and physician office counts were included.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We included two dependent variables, each meant to capture a different facet of the vaccine rollout across urban areas in the state. First, we examined the number of vaccine sites per 100,000 people in a ZIP code. This came from the geocoded locations for vaccine allocations and reflected a simple count of the locations providing COVID-19 vaccines. We also divided this number by the population size and multiplied by 100,000 to derive a rate per 100,000 people. Beyond the mere availability of a vaccine site, we also examined the distribution of vaccine doses per 10,000 people to each site for each week of the 9-week period. The state provided data on the week-by-week allocations to each of the geocoded locations. To derive a rate, we divided this number by the population and multiplied by 10,000.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study measured vaccine access only in absolute counts of sites and did not adjust for population size when calculating availability indicators.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Table 3 provides a description of mothers’ education at the baseline and postnatal college completion between Waves 1 and 6. At the baseline wave, 40% of the FFCW sample did not have a high school degree, 25% reported a high school degree or GED, 24% reported some college (i.e., a vocational degree, associate’s degrees, or college schooling that did not result in a degree), and 11% had a bachelor’s degree. Between the baseline interview and sixth wave, 33% (n = 1,099) of the Wave 6 sample (n = 3,146 mothers) had completed a vocational degree, 13% (n = 417) had completed an associate’s degree, and 9% 	n = 295) had completed a bachelor’s degree. Among mothers who completed a vocational degree, 67% of cases (n = 733) resulted in an increase in education. Among mothers who completed an associate’s degree, 54% of cases (n = 224) resulted in an observable increase in education (this estimate is likely conservative because of how some college is coded). Among mothers who completed a bachelor’s degree, there was an increase in education in 85% of cases (n 	= 251). More information about the number and percentage of mothers (based on the Wave 6 sample) who earned various degrees by their starting level of education (thus providing details on cell sizes) is also presented in Table 3.

    Claimed Finding:
    Roughly one-third of the mothers in Wave 6 had earned a vocational degree after their child’s birth.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    To provide a preliminary picture of the link between maternal health and education, Table 4 presents the bivariate associations between baseline maternal education and the four maternal health outcomes. Pairwise estimates of statistical significance between different levels of education were performed using one-way analysis of variance. Maternal health reflects an average of the pooled estimates across the five study waves. Results demonstrate the educational gradient in maternal health. As mothers’ baseline level of educational attainment increased, their overall self-rated health increased, and their reports of parenting stress, having poor mental health, and having recently smoked decreased. The rate of smoking was four times greater for mothers with less than a high school degree than for mothers with a bachelor’s degree (36% vs. 8%). Differences in mental health were also noteworthy, albeit smaller (26% vs. 14%). Patterns for overall health represented a 55% of a standard deviation (overall SD = 1.05) difference between mothers with the highest and lowest levels of education. Patterns for parenting stress amount to a 15% of a standard deviation (overall SD = .69) difference. Notably, differences among those with a high school degree and some college were not as pronounced.

    Claimed Finding:
    Mothers with less than a high school education were four times as likely to smoke as mothers with a bachelor’s degree.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    As an initial step, I explored variability in maternal health across waves. First, for all four outcomes, I calculated the within- and between-person variance components. This step revealed that variances for overall health and parenting stress were similar in magnitude within mothers as between mothers (results in Table 2; estimates reflected standard deviations). For global mental health, the within estimate suggested that of the mothers who reported a mental health struggle, mothers reported a mental health struggle in 46% of their reports. Among mothers who smoked, this number was 72%.

    Claimed Finding:
    The between-person variance in parenting stress was much larger than the within-person variance.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Second, transition probabilities provided a different perspective on these two categorical outcomes. They revealed that 22% of women who smoked at one wave did not smoke at a later wave, and 52% of mothers who reported a mental health struggle the past year did not do so in a later wave. These models indicated the potential for health to change across time and provided the foundation for the subsequent modeling steps.

    Claimed Finding:
    More than half of the mothers who had reported a mental health struggle at one wave no longer reported such struggles at a later wave.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Next, I added baseline maternal education to the model, with the high school degree/GED as the reference category, along with the Set 1 background covariates (see Table 5, Model 2). These results were similar to the patterns presented in the bivariate analyses. Compared to mothers with high school degrees or GEDs, mothers with bachelor’s degrees had higher overall health and were less likely to report a mental health issue or smoking. Conversely, mothers without a high school diploma had worse overall health and higher rates of poor mental health and smoking. They also had more parenting stress. Differences among the high school and some college groups were nonsignificant, with the exception of smoking, with lower rates of smoking among the some college group. Education also did not significantly differentiate parenting stress levels among mothers with a high school degree/GED or higher, although patterns across all outcomes are consistent with the gradient.

    Claimed Finding:
    The adjusted model showed significantly lower parenting stress among mothers with some college compared to those with only a high school diploma.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The results of this modeling step (see Table 6, Models 3–5) revealed few significant associations between the time-varying measures for postsecondary education and maternal health (10 of 12 models). There were two exceptions. Among mothers with a technical/trade degree or less at baseline, those who earned an associate’s degree reported significantly higher levels of overall health (B = .11, SE = .05; these patterns were the same when restricting the sample to mothers in the some college category). Second, mothers with some college or less at the baseline wave who subsequently completed a bachelor’s degree reported significantly lower likelihoods of smoking (B = –.62, SE = .26; odds ratio = .54). These estimates, however, remain vulnerable to omitted variable bias.

    Claimed Finding:
    For mothers who began with no more than a technical credential, earning an associate’s degree was linked to a small but statistically significant increase in overall self-rated health.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Thus, as a final step, I used fixed effects to tease out time-invariant unobserved sources of heterogeneity. For this analysis, I followed an iterative process that incorporated the time-varying covariates in a step-wise fashion. Factors less likely to be mechanisms of mothers’ postsecondary attainment (e.g., child health, access to emergency childcare) were entered first. Factors more likely to be mechanisms (e.g., family income, maternal paid work) were entered last. Following this approach and specifying fixed effects, the inclusion of the first covariate, child overall health, attenuated the association between mothers’ associate’s degree completion and overall health and between mothers’ bachelor degree completion and reduced smoking to nonsignificance.

    Claimed Finding:
    Even after accounting for child health, completing an associate’s degree continued to predict significantly better overall health for mothers.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Given the lack of significant findings, I performed several auxiliary analyses to determine whether a significant association may emerge under alternate conditions. These included (1) among certain subpopulations, including mothers for whom the focal child was their first birth and mothers who were not racial-ethnic minorities; (2) for other health outcomes, including the CIDI–SF measure of depression, reports of heavy drinking, and body mass index; or (3) using measures of school enrollment. None of the models produced significant findings.

    Claimed Finding:
    Supplementary analyses using alternative health outcomes such as heavy drinking or BMI showed no significant health benefits from mothers’ postsecondary education.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    I also examined (4) heterogeneity in the “effects” of a postsecondary degree based on mothers’ baseline levels of education by adding interactions between baseline education and the time-varying additional education measures in the fixed effects models. These analyses did not reveal heterogeneity based on baseline education, with one exception. There was a marginally significant association between bachelor’s completion and reduced smoking among mothers with both a high school degree/GED and less than a high school degree at baseline. Given that these were small groups (ns = 27 and 53, respectively) and low in statistical power, I reestimated the model for just this group. This model suggested that a bachelor’s degree for this group was significantly associated (p < .01) with a 16% reduction in the odds of smoking. Due to limited cell sizes, I could not examine the cumulative effect of multiple postnatal degrees.

    Claimed Finding:
    Interaction analyses indicated that the smoking reduction associated with earning a bachelor’s degree was greatest for mothers who already had some college education before giving birth.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Additionally, I considered (5) the potential for a “lagged” effect by regressing health at Wave 6 on measures on additional education measures from Wave 5 net of the Set 1 and 2 covariates. These models did not yield significant results. Finally, I explored (6) the potential for indirect effects, focusing on income, which is likely to be a main driver in mothers’ decisions to return to school. These analyses used mediation tests in structural equation modeling that extended the lagged models. In short, while income at Wave 6 was significantly associated with all four concurrent health outcomes, it did not significantly mediate the link between vocational degree or associate’s degree attainment and maternal health. It did significantly mediate the association with Wave 5 bachelor’s degree attainment, but the size of the indirect effects were small (see Appendix C in the online version of the arti- cle). Taken in combination with the small coefficient size and insignificant direct effect for bachelor’s degree completion, these results suggest that this small positive mediating effect of greater income is likely offset by other negative mediating factors (for a methodological discussion, see Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010).

    Claimed Finding:
    Household income fully mediated the positive relationship between completing a bachelor’s degree and improved maternal health.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Providers frequently evade claims of bias in their care by utilizing data, especially around pregnancy risk, to rationalize their differential contraceptive counseling. These data function to produce and reinforce biases about patients that then inform provider practices. Scientific arguments have long been used to encourage and validate eugenicist beliefs about who should reproduce, especially regarding women of color (Roberts 1997). In its more modern and implicit form, such claims hinge on references to aggregated data about contraceptive efficacy and women most at risk for unintended pregnancies. These data prompt providers to anticipate certain patient risks and contraceptive needs. Kathleen, a white nurse midwife, explains:

Young women I am more likely to dissuade from using pills [b]ecause of research. . . . Like I have heard anything from 84 to 89% [efficacy] . . . I mean I have been here for a long time and at times it really feels Third World and (pauses) just it seems like especially with teenagers . . . where I worked before, that [pregnancy] was almost celebrated. It wasn’t frowned upon or necessarily considered (pauses) bad.

    Claimed Finding:
    Providers often justify steering younger women away from oral contraceptives by citing scientific evidence about higher pregnancy risk.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Public health data that identify some women as most “at risk” for unplanned pregnancies prime providers to preemptively conclude which contraceptives may benefit specific patients. Robert, a white nurse practitioner, loosely references these data on pregnancy risk and contraceptive compliance to explain why he is more likely to steer young patients of low SES toward LARCs. He remarks:

[M]y appointment would say “Title X” and then
“birth control” would be the thing that’s after
it . . . and then I would steer them. . . . [W]e’re a
little biased towards trying to get one of
the . . . LARCs in . . . our younger Title Xs just
because . . . they are statistically at a higher risk
for becoming pregnant . . . or for not understanding
and following through on their birth control.

    Claimed Finding:
    Robert deliberately avoids directing Title X patients toward any particular contraceptive method so that his counseling remains completely unbiased.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    I think unintended pregnancy breaks all socio
economic barriers, but it probably is more
prevalent in the more populated, inner city,
lower SES neighborhoods than it is in [names
two
wealthy,
largely
white
suburban
neighborhoods] . . . I think people who are in
families where career and education are valued
very high, I think there is a lot more education
about
unintended
pregnancy
and
sexual
promiscuity. . . . It doesn’t mean [unintended
pregnancy] doesn’t happen. It just means it’s
probably less typical.

Put contraception in the drinking water, put it
into the ventilation systems. . . . If that’s not
considered ethically appropriate, then [do]
something like making it a statewide [LARC]
initiative . . . that’s based on the literature and the
research they’ve done. If you knew that 100% of
unintended pregnancies took place in [these two
low SES, urban zip codes], then yes, I would say
target [those two zip codes]. . . . But it doesn’t
mean we shouldn’t be educating everybody . . . but
the way you deliver that message may be
different. The way you sell alcohol to inner cities
and the way you market and sell alcohol to the
rich is different. It’s about what attracts their
attention.

    Claimed Finding:
    Peter views unintended pregnancy as occurring more often in low-income inner-city areas than in affluent suburbs.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The other thing that really frustrates the crap out of
me—excuse me—is the patient who comes in and
says, “No, I don’t want to be pregnant, but I don’t
use any birth control” . . . you want to take that
person and shake them. Some of it is ignorance,
some of it is cultural . . . I’m not telling you not to
get pregnant. I’m telling you, “If you don’t want to
be pregnant, you should do something to prevent
it” . . . I hate to say this, but I think it’s a fact that
there is a strong correlation between African
American and low socioeconomic status . . . I think
the white population seems to be overall more
likely to be knowledgeable, compliant, etc. And
it’s not meant to be a racist statement (laughs).

    Claimed Finding:
    Mark associates higher unintended-pregnancy risk and lower contraceptive compliance with African American women of low socioeconomic status.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Kevin, a white physician, uses
safe biases to implicitly link pregnancy risk to
women of low SES. He explains, “Education is
hugely important. You need to care for yourself
before you can care for somebody else. . . . They’re
just completely not educated [about birth con-
trol] . . . neighborhoods where four generations and
three generations have been on public assistance.”

    Claimed Finding:
    Kevin maintains that being on public assistance has no connection to gaps in contraceptive education among women.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    And we cater to a specific population because we
are private insurance only. . . . Because we don’t
have your Medicaids or your more underserved
populations [but] I did some volunteering
recently [and] the clientele are . . . people who
don’t have private insurance. . . . Well, your
underserved population. Yeah. I don’t like the
word “poor” (laughing) . . . They’re young and
typically if you’ve had one unplanned pregnancy,
you’re more likely to have another. So it’s just
kind of the way the cycle goes. . . . But if they’re in
the underserved populations, it’s not going to
help anybody to have multiple children [and]
they’re not going to buy condoms, they’re still
going to have sex. . . . And so it would make the
most sense to put themselves in the easiest
situation possible for long term where they don’t
have to worry about having a baby [by using] your
Mirenas, your ParaGards [IUD brands] . . . which
is what I would recommend.

    Claimed Finding:
    Stephanie portrays uninsured, underserved women as unlikely to purchase condoms and therefore recommends IUDs as the most sensible long-term option.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    I mean the “less educated” person . . . One . . .
they’re not exposed to the information as much . . .
I find that the less educated people . . . don’t
understand well when I try and explain
[contraception] . . . whereas somebody who’s a
higher-educated person . . . they obviously get [it].
So it makes it easier to give a scientific answer to
them whereas for the lower socioeconomic, less
educated people, it is a little harder . . . I speak in a
very different way . . . at least our African American
population is probably a lower socioeconomic
status than our average Caucasian. So it’s hard to
tell whether it’s the cultural part or the
socioeconomic part—and . . . I try not to bring my
morals into when I counsel people. But we had
single parents . . . that can’t take any more kids
and that the government is paying for
Medicaid . . . and [the kids are] not getting raised
well. . . . Sometimes people need help, but we
can’t enable them for so long that they can’t help
themselves.

    Claimed Finding:
    Drew says he provides identical explanations to every patient and never modifies his counseling style based on education, socioeconomic status, or race.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    But I think if you are standard in the way that you
ask everybody, it’s for me personally the best
way to try to eliminate any bias. . . . If I ask every
kid the same thing in the same hopefully sensitive
way, then I am not—I am hopefully trying to
eliminate any personal biases or perceptions . . . a
lot of medicine is trying to recognize quickly
certain things or trying to think about what your
patients are most at risk for . . . I really think almost
every kid would benefit from a LARC . . . so I
really try to recommend them . . . [they] are really
the way to go.

    Claimed Finding:
    Vanessa reports that she rarely endorses LARC methods for adolescents, offering them only to a small subset of high-risk youth.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    I try and give the same exact word-for-word to
everybody . . . I don’t say, “Oh, you’re black.
Let’s just talk about this.” Or, “Oh, you’re white,
we’re just going to talk about this.” . . . [A] good
portion of [my current patients] have a college
education . . . so I will speak to them a little bit
more medically . . . I don’t want to say “bigger
words”—but
I’ll
use
more
data . . . in
residency . . . that was more like an inner city
office, usually lower socioeconomic status,
maybe not high school education, a little bit
more of like an urban population . . . I don’t know
if this is maybe like a weird prejudice, but I’ll try
to use examples with like that more urban kind
of undereducated [patient]. I think I had a
19-year-old girl a few months ago who was like,
“I just don’t care if I get pregnant.” I was like,
“That’s an awful attitude.”

    Claimed Finding:
    Although Dayna insists she uses the same spiel for everyone, she admits simplifying explanations and changing examples for urban, lower-SES patients.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    For the most part, I mean nobody pushes any
service or anything on a person. We’re not in that
day and age nowadays. But at the same point in
time, if here are your choices: X, Y, Z. You’ve
got to choose X, Y, Z because that’s what we
have available to you. That’s the thing that’s
most easy for you to get X, Y, Z. “Oh, you want
H? Oh, then we have to do a little bit more work
on that. Hm. I have 15 minutes.” So and it all
plays a role. So when you’re looking especially
Medicaid and what Medicaid will pay for.

    Claimed Finding:
    Ruth states that patients always have unfettered access to whichever contraceptive method they choose, regardless of Medicaid coverage or clinic inventory.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Means and percentages for the total sample and by incarceration exposure are displayed in Table 1. Over half of this African American sample reported being formerly incarcerated (52.2%), over one-third were incarcerated in the past 4 years (35.0%), and two-thirds were incarcerated more than once (65.9%). These descriptive results are consistent with literature indicating the mass incarceration of young low-income black adults (see Wildeman and Wang 2017).2 Among the formerly incarcerated individuals, 12.0% experienced direct violence during incarceration, and 23.4% experienced secondary violence. GrimAge scores indicate that, on average, formerly incarcerated individuals experience accelerated aging (x = 1.179), whereas those who were never incarcerated experience decelerated aging (x = –1.349, p < .001). Table 1 also reveals differences by incarceration exposure across demographic characteristics, preincarceration health behaviors, and childhood adversity.

    Claimed Finding:
    Participants with any incarceration history showed significantly higher GrimAge acceleration than those never incarcerated.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Regression models predicting the speed of Grim aging are shown in Table 2. Model 1 presents the estimates of the association between incarceration exposure and the speed of aging net of the full array of confounds. The results show that incarceration is associated with accelerated epigenetic aging in this African American sample, with exposure predicting a greater accelerated aging score by about 2 years (b = 1.970; p ≤ .001). After applying IPTW (Model 2) to the model, the association between incarceration exposure and the speed of aging is slightly reduced but remains statistically significant. Exposure to incarceration is associated with a 1.719 difference (approximately 1 year and 9 months) in accelerated aging (p ≤ .001).

    Claimed Finding:
    After weighting for selection bias, the relationship between incarceration and accelerated GrimAge was no longer statistically significant.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In Model 3, we restricted the sample to respondents with propensity scores that fall within the range of propensities calculated for both the incarcerated and never incarcerated respondents. Similarly, in Model 4, we exclude all respondents with atypical propensities—propensity scores within the fifth percentiles. Both models reveal a stronger association between incarceration exposure and the speed of Grim aging, indicating a conservative estimate in Model 2.3 Together, the evidence from Table 2 indicates that among the African American respondents in our sample, incarceration exposure is associated with an acceleration in biological aging by 21 to 28 months.

    Claimed Finding:
    Analyses that limited the data to common support or trimmed extreme weights produced even larger incarceration effects, implying that the earlier 1.7-year estimate is conservative.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Results suggest that the timing of incarceration may not moderate the association—formerly incarcerated individuals did not experience greater accelerated aging if they were incarcerated in the past 4 years (Model 1; see also, Boen 2020). Results also show that the effects of incarceration exposure did not vary by the frequency of incarceration spells (Model 2).4 These findings align with past studies in which incarceration exposure or prevalence mattered more for health outcomes than dosage (e.g., Schnittker and John 2007; but see Boen 2020).

    Claimed Finding:
    Individuals who had been incarcerated within the last four years exhibited significantly greater epigenetic aging than those whose incarceration was more distant in time.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    As shown in Model 3, direct violence intensifies the association between incarceration exposure and accelerated aging in this African American sample (b = 1.388; p < .05). Figure 2 illustrates these patterns. As shown, formerly incarcerated individuals who did not report direct violence are roughly 9 months (12 × .776) older biologically than expected based on their chronological age. Those who did report direct violence during incarceration are approximately 2 years and 2 months (12 × 2.164) older biologically than expected based on their chronological age. These results indicate that the direct experiences with violence during incarceration moderate the association between incarceration exposure and the speed of aging. Secondary violence, however, does not moderate the association (see Model 4), suggesting that witnessing violence may not exacerbate the already stressful incarceration experience for African American adults.

    Claimed Finding:
    Directly experiencing violence while incarcerated further accelerated biological aging, whereas merely witnessing violence did not add additional risk.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Supplementary models—available on request—revealed that gender does not significantly moderate the association between incarceration exposure and accelerated aging in this African American sample (b = .303, SE = .900; p = .736). Exposure to incarceration is associated with a 1.904 difference (approximately 1 year and 11 months) in accelerated aging for African American men (p ≤ .001) and a 1.602 difference (approximately 1 year and 7 months) in accelerated aging for African American women (p ≤ .001).

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors found that incarceration accelerated biological aging for men but not for women.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The index was developed by identifying a set of plasma protein predictors of mortality and then using these protein predictors to identify CpG sites that could predict time to death. As expected, the GrimAge index has a weak to moderate correlation with chronological age in the FACHS sample (r = .22), indicating a discrepancy between biological and calendar ages.

    Claimed Finding:
    In this cohort, GrimAge correlated only modestly (about r = .22) with chronological age, showing that biological and calendar age diverged appreciably.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Of these respondents, successful assaying for methylation was achieved for 449 individuals. In the current study, analyses were based on the 410 African American respondents who were successfully assayed and for whom data were available on all study measures—13 respondents were missing data on incarceration history (2.9%), and an additional 26 respondents were missing data on the covariates in the model (5.8%).1

    Claimed Finding:
    More than 20% of the analytical sample lacked complete covariate data, indicating substantial missingness.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    This finding is illustrated in Figure 1—formerly incarcerated individuals are roughly 11 months (12 × .902) older biologically than expected based on their chronological (or calendar) age, whereas those who have never been incarcerated are 10 months younger biologically (12 × –.816) than expected based on their chronological age.

    Claimed Finding:
    Relative to their chronological age, formerly incarcerated participants averaged about 11 months of excess biological aging, while never-incarcerated peers averaged roughly 10 months of biological youth.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In an additional sensitivity analysis, we use a regression adjustment estimator in addition to inverse probability of treatment weighting (see Boen 2020). When using a regression adjustment, we find a similar treatment effect (b = 1.836, SE = .386, p = .000).

    Claimed Finding:
    Applying a regression‐adjustment sensitivity test reduced the incarceration effect to near zero and it was no longer significant.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Table 1 shows, among other things, few significant differences in distress on average. There is no black-white or Hispanic-white paradox, though in basic multivariate models (see Table 3), a significant difference emerges. Table 2 shows large racial-ethnic differ- ences in the use of medications with side effects. About 60% of non-Hispanic whites do not use medications with depression as a side effect, but this percentage is much higher among minorities, espe- cially Asians and Hispanics. About 5% of whites use three or more such medications, relative to slightly over 4% of blacks, 1% of Asians, and 2% of Hispanics. The same pattern is found for drugs involving suicide as a side effect, though the racial- ethnic differences are, if anything, larger. About 72% of whites use no such medications, relative to 85% of blacks, 91% of Asians, and 87% of Hispanics. The white population uses three or more such medications at levels that are at least two-to- one relative to racial-ethnic minorities.

    Claimed Finding:
    Non-Hispanic whites are slightly more likely than non-Hispanic blacks to use three or more medications that list depression as a side effect.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Table 3 presents means for the distress variables arrayed by race-ethnicity and drug use. It also shows two patterns in particular that set the stage for the multivariate models. In general, the use of medications with side effects increases the preva- lence of significant distress and the K6 score. Furthermore, racial-ethnic differences in distress are different within the rows denoting the use of no drugs with side effects. Within this group, the preva- lence of significant distress is generally higher among blacks than among whites (the difference is statistically significant for three of four compari- sons). Similarly, the prevalence of distress is higher among Hispanics (for three of four comparisons).

    Claimed Finding:
    Across groups, taking medications with side effects is associated with higher rates of significant psychological distress.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The regression models presented in Table 4 explore the consequences of such medications for the minority advantage in mental health. Pairs of models are presented for each model specification, the first using linear regression for the K6 summary score and the second using logit regression for the categorical coding of the K6. The use of control variables is critical both for understanding the magnitude of the paradox and for contextualizing the influence of pharmaceutical use. The baseline model controls for socioeconomic status (as well as other variables) and shows a minority advantage, both with respect to a dimensional measure of distress and a categorical one. The magnitude of the difference is large, with minorities showing at least a 20% reduction in the odds of reporting significant distress. The second pair of models inserts controls for each of the chronic health conditions. As expected, this adjustment alters the magnitude of the racial-ethnic differences, though in ways spe- cific to each racial-ethnic group. The black-white difference is suppressed somewhat by physical health, such that the black advantage would be even larger—about 7% larger for the K6 score—were it not for a black disadvantage in physical health. For both Hispanics and Asians, however, the inclusion of controls for chronic conditions explains some of the apparent mental health advantage. The Asian advantage for the K6 is reduced by about 67%, whereas the Hispanic advantage is reduced by 46%. The difference between Hispanics and whites in significant distress, meanwhile, is reduced to statistical nonsignificance.

    Claimed Finding:
    After adjusting for chronic health conditions, the Hispanic advantage in the continuous K6 score disappears entirely.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The next two models introduce controls for the use of pharmaceuticals involving depression and suicide as side-effects. In the first pair of models (Model 3), the count of medicines involving suicide includes antidepressants, but in the second pair (Model 4), the count excludes them. The inclusion of the side-effect variables explains what remains of much of the racial-ethnic advantage. Although the black-white difference in the K6 summary remains significant and shows a black advantage, it is reduced a great deal, by 60%, relative to Model 1. The difference in significant distress, meanwhile, is reduced to statistical nonsignificance. A similar pattern is found for the Asian-white difference, and in fact, the Asian advantage in the K6 turns into a significant Asian disadvantage. Similarly, the Hispanic advantage with respect to significant distress in Model 1 is reversed in Model 4, turning into a significant Hispanic disadvantage. Formal tests of mediation using structural equations and the contin- ued K6 outcome provide further evidence for medi- ation. In Model 3, the indirect effect of black was –.359 (p < .001), and the direct effect was –.214  (p < .001). The parallel effects for Asians and Hispanics were, respectively, –.375 (p < .001) and .235 (p < .001) and –.222 (p < .001) and –.031  (p = .583). In Model 4, similar patterns of signifi- cance among direct and indirect effects were found with the exception of the direct effect of Asian was no longer significant (b = .103, p = .115) and the direct effect of Hispanic emerged as borderline sig- nificant (b = –.122, p = .037).

    Claimed Finding:
    When medication side-effect controls are added, the black–white gap in significant distress actually grows larger rather than shrinking.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    These patterns are due in part to the particularly powerful relationship between drugs with suicide as a side effect and the risk of significant distress, especially when using three or more such medications. Taking three or more medications with suicide as a side effect results in an increase in the odds of significant distress by a factor of more than 10. Even one such medication more than doubles the odds of significant distress. Drugs with depression as a side effect are consequential, too, though the relationship is considerably weaker than it is for suicide. To be sure, some of the relationship between drugs with suicide as a side effect and significant distress could be driven by the inclusion of antidepressants in the count. Such drugs involve suicide as a side effect and therefore are relevant to considering nonspecific psychological distress, but such drugs obviously do not involve depression as a side effect. The next pair of models eliminates antidepressants from the count. This reduces the rela- tionship between drugs with suicide as a side effect and the risk of significant distress, though it does not reduce the relationship by much. For instance, in the K6 models, the coefficient for three or more such drugs is reduced by only 3% between Models 3 and 4. Moreover, pharmaceutical side effects con- tinue to explain the racial-ethnic minority advan- tage with respect to significant distress. The mediating effect for the black-white difference in the K6 score is weaker than for Model 3, though side effects still explain 32% of the difference.

    Claimed Finding:
    Using three or more drugs that have suicide listed as a side effect raises the odds of significant psychological distress by more than ten times.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    There are other ways to explore unobserved het- erogeneity with respect to health. It is possible that drugs involving depression or suicide as a side effect have no more of a relationship with the K6 than drugs that do not have depression or suicide as a side effect—that the entire relationship between pharmaceutical use and the K6 is driven by under- lying treated illness. Other studies have explored this possibility and found that drugs without depres- sion or suicide as a side effect are statistically unre- lated to depression (Qato et al. 2018), though it is important to see if the same holds true in the present study, which uses both a different data set and a dif- ferent outcome. Model 2 suggests other drugs have a significant relationship with the K6, too, though the magnitude of the relationship is much weaker than it is for drugs involving suicide as a side effect. For each pair-wise coefficient comparison (i.e., one medication with suicide as a side effect is equal to one drug with neither depression nor suicide as a side effect), the difference is statistically significant at p < .001.

    Claimed Finding:
    Model 2 shows that medications without depression or suicide side effects have no significant association with psychological distress.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    A narrower sensitivity test is to estimate the same models among those with only one chronic condition, thereby eliminating respondents with complex comorbidities altogether. Model 3 pres- ents a baseline model, including all the controls presented in Model 1 of Table 4 but limiting the sample to those with a single condition. Model 4 then introduces controls for medications with depression and suicide as side effects. The same pattern is evident for this subsample as it is for the full sample. All the coefficients indicating a racial- ethnic minority advantage are eliminated once con- trols for medications with depression or suicide as a side effect are introduced.

    Claimed Finding:
    Among respondents who have exactly one chronic condition, adjusting for medication side effects removes the minority mental-health advantage.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The final two models provide an even more stringent test. Pharmaceuticals are taken for many reasons, including the treatment of disease but also its prevention and the treatment of risk rather than disease itself. Younger people are, on average, healthier than older people and so consume pharmaceuticals under different conditions. Models 5 and 6 limit the sample to those between the ages of 18 and 30. Although the magnitude of the racial- ethnic difference in distress itself differs in this sub- sample, the influence of pharmaceuticals with side effects is very similar to that estimated in the full sample, greatly reducing or eliminating the minority advantage.

    Claimed Finding:
    Limiting the analysis to adults aged 18–30 shows that medication side effects have little impact and the minority mental-health advantage remains unchanged.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    This study used nationally representative data to explore the consequences of pharmaceutical side effects for racial-ethnic differences in distress. The results indicate that medications play a significant role in shaping the apparent mental health advan- tage among racial-ethnic minorities, though there is some variation between groups and between the continuous and categorical codings of the K6. The black-white difference in significant distress is reduced to statistical nonsignificance in a model controlling for side effects. The black-white differ- ence in the continuous distress score remains sig- nificant, though the difference, as estimated with basic controls, is reduced by 32% in a model that excludes antidepressants (Model 4) and by 60% in a model that includes them (Model 3). The advantage in significant distress for Asians is reduced to statis- tical nonsignificance, and at least in Model 3, the advantage for significant distress turns into a sig- nificant disadvantage among Hispanics. In the case of Asians, the advantage for continuous distress is reduced to nonsignificance in Model 4. Although differences between whites and both Hispanics and blacks in continuous distress remain in Model 4, pharmaceutical side effects play an important role in explaining the minority mental health paradox.

    Claimed Finding:
    After accounting for medication side effects, the black–white difference in significant distress is no longer statistically significant.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In general, many chronic conditions are more common among non-Hispanic whites than minorities, though there are notable exceptions. Blacks report a considerably higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, stroke, and asthma. For many chronic conditions, Asians and Hispanics report a considerably lower prevalence than non-Hispanic whites.

    Claimed Finding:
    The prevalence of hypertension is lower among blacks than among non-Hispanic whites.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Overall, results are consistent with hypothesis 3 and inconsistent with hypotheses 1 and 2: an ADHD diagnosis has a negative “marginal effect” on future child self-competence and teacher-rated school behaviors, but only among children from middle- and upper-SES families (Table 2). Both diagnosed children from upper-SES and middle-SES backgrounds exhibit .36 points (or .36 / .69 = .52 SD) statistically significantly lower future positive learning-related behaviors in fifth grade compared to their undiagnosed counterparts who had similar propensities for diagnosis but were not diagnosed (Models 1–2).

    Claimed Finding:
    An ADHD diagnosis significantly lowers future positive learning behaviors for middle- and upper-SES children, while lower-SES children are unaffected.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Diagnosed upper-SES children also exhibit .25 points (.25 / .57 = .44 SD) statistically significantly higher externalizing problems in fifth grade than their undiagnosed counterparts (Model 4). Diagnosed middle-SES children likewise exhibit statistically significant .18 points (.18 / .65 = .28 SD) higher externalizing problems than their undiagnosed counterparts (Model 5). Finally, diagnosed upper-SES children report statistically significantly lower perceived self-competence by .25 points (.25 / .77=.32 SD). Diagnosed middle-SES children likewise report .27 points (.27 / .80 = .34 SD) statistically significantly lower perceived self-competence relative to undiagnosed matches who had a similar propensity to be diagnosed (Models 7–8).

    Claimed Finding:
    Among upper-SES children, receiving an ADHD diagnosis is linked to lower externalizing behavior problems compared with undiagnosed peers.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Results in Table 3 differentiate between diagnosed upper-SES children who did versus did not receive medication following diagnosis. Results are consistent with hypothesis 3 on two of the three outcomes and run counter to hypothesis 4. Among diagnosed upper-SES children, ADHD diagnosis is associated with poorer approaches to learning and externalizing problems irrespective of medication use, but is only significantly tied to poorer academic self-competence for those who are receiving medication.

    Claimed Finding:
    For upper-SES youth, an ADHD diagnosis reduces academic self-competence only if the child is medicated.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Among middle-SES children, diagnosis is tied to poorer outcomes on all three measures irrespective of medication receipt. Specifically, both “diagnosed and medicated” and “diagnosed and unmedicated” upper-SES children respectively exhibit .46 points (.67 SD) and .30 points (.43 SD) significantly poorer positive approaches to learning in fifth grade than their undiagnosed counterparts (model 1). They also respectively exhibit .18 points (.32 SD) and .38 points (.67 SD) significantly poorer externalizing problems in fifth grade (model 4). Similarly, both “diagnosed and medicated” and “diagnosed and unmedicated” middle-SES children respectively exhibit .31 points (.41 SD) and .42 points (.56 SD) significantly poorer positive approaches to learning (model 2) and .17 points (.26 SD) and .20 (.31 SD) significantly worse externalizing problems than their undiagnosed matches (model 5).

    Claimed Finding:
    Medication fully eliminates the negative impact of an ADHD diagnosis on positive approaches to learning for upper-SES children.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    When it comes to perceived self-competence, both “diagnosed and medicated” and “diagnosed and unmedicated” middle-SES children again score significantly worse than their undiagnosed matches, by .22 points (.28 SD) and .36 points (.45 SD), respectively (model 8). However, among upper-SES children, only those who are diagnosed and medicated score significantly worse than their undiagnosed matches, by .41 points (.53 SD) (model 7). For diagnosed upper-SES children not receiving medication, the relationship between diagnosis and perceived self-competence is directionally similar and statistically non-significantly smaller (–.24 points or .31 SD) compared to upper-SES children receiving medication (–.41 points) (model 7). But this .24 points poorer reported self-competence is not itself statistically significantly different from 0. Likewise, none of the other differences between “diagnosed and medicated” and “diagnosed and unmedicated” children are significantly different within social class groups either.

    Claimed Finding:
    Among upper-SES children who are not medicated, an ADHD diagnosis significantly lowers their perceived self-competence.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    By contrast, for children in lower-SES families, ADHD diagnosis is not significantly tied to any of the outcome variables. That is, diagnosed lower-SES children have statistically indistinguishable levels of the fifth grade outcomes as their undiagnosed counterparts (Models 3, 6, and 9 of Table 2). Substantively, the estimated effects of diagnosis are at least 50% to 66% smaller for lower-SES compared to middle- and/or upper-SES children. On perceived self-competence and positive approaches to learning, differences are statistically significantly smaller among lower-SES compared to both middle-SES and upper-SES children (model 3 vs. 1 and 2, and model 9 vs. 7 and 8 of Table 2). On future teacher-rated externalizing problems, the differences between lower SES and middle SES or upper SES are not statistically significant but follow in the expected direction (model 6 vs. 4 and 5).

    Claimed Finding:
    Receiving an ADHD diagnosis does not significantly change teacher-rated externalizing behaviors for lower-SES children.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Medication receipt does not further moderate differences in the marginal effects of diagnosis for lower-SES children (Table 3). The magnitudes of the differences in outcomes between “diagnosed and medicated” and undiagnosed lower-SES children are likewise much smaller than the analogous differences for middle- and upper-class children and, in fact, are statistically significantly smaller on future positive approaches to learning and perceived self-competence compared to upper-SES children (model 3 vs. 1 and model 9 vs. 7 of Table 3). Without medication receipt, “diagnosed and unmedicated” children from lower-SES backgrounds report significantly better future perceived self-competence than middle-SES children (.16 vs. –.36) and exhibit significantly better future teacher-rated school externalizing problems than upper-SES children (.11 vs. .38), each relative to their undiagnosed counterparts. Between “diagnosed and unmedicated” lower-SES vs. higher-SES children, however, neither differences in self-competence (.16 vs. –.24) nor positive approaches to learning (e.g., –.06 vs. –.42) differ significantly, though each follows the expected pattern. This may be due to cell size limitations for “diagnosed and unmedicated” children, per endnote 3. Together, overall results indicate that diagnosed and medicated upper-SES and middle-SES children—but not diagnosed and medicated lower-SES children—experience significantly worse future outcomes, each relative to their otherwise comparable undiagnosed counterparts.

    Claimed Finding:
    Among lower-SES youngsters, taking medication does not materially alter the non-significant effect of an ADHD diagnosis on later outcomes.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The most important finding from Figure 3 is that, on all three outcomes, “diagnosed and medicated” upper-SES and middle-SES children fare comparably to undiagnosed lower-SES children. “Diagnosed and medicated” upper- and middle-SES children also fare slightly worse than their “diagnosed and unmedicated” counterparts on future positive approaches to learning and perceived self-competence. The opposite is true for future externalizing problems.

    Claimed Finding:
    Diagnosed and medicated upper-SES children outperform undiagnosed lower-SES peers on every measured outcome.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Finally, on future perceived self-competence (panel c), “diagnosed and unmedicated” lower-SES children are predicted to fare as well as undiagnosed upper-SES children and slightly higher than undiagnosed middle-SES children. For these lower-SES children, diagnosis may provide a “legitimate” (i.e., medical) explanation for the child’s difficulties and ease some of the burden posed by other structural barriers to school success. The lack of medication treatment may diminish any effects of stigma experienced by the child or family. Together, the result may be the high subjective levels of perceived self-competence observed.

    Claimed Finding:
    Unmedicated lower-SES children who are diagnosed with ADHD have perceived self-competence that is roughly equal to undiagnosed upper-SES children.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    I calculate that the difference between “diagnosed and unmedicated” and “diagnosed and medicated” lower-SES children would have to be at a minimum 2.05 times (105%) greater (for perceived self-competence) and 3.67 times (267%) greater (for positive approaches to learning) for there to be a significant difference between “diagnosed and unmedicated” and “diagnosed and medicated” lower-SES children at p < .05 (two-sided t-test).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study found a statistically significant difference in perceived self-competence between medicated and unmedicated lower-SES children diagnosed with ADHD.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The univariate, nonlogged descriptive statistics for
the dependent and independent variables are
reported in Table 1. The table includes the mean and
the overall, within, and between standard deviation
(SD) for each variable. For all of the variables, the
variance is greater between states rather than within
them over time. Particularly notable is the mean of
the drug-related mortality rate, which is 15.98
deaths per 100,000 people. The mortality rate varies
substantially within states (within SD = 4.80) and
between states (between SD = 4.98).

    Claimed Finding:
    There is more variability in drug-related mortality between states than within states over the study period.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We also found that much of the variance for our
three main independent variables of interest (the
percentage of the population with a bachelor’s
degree, the opioid prescription rate, and income
inequality) is between states rather than within
them. The mean percentage of people with a bache-
lor’s degree is 28.84 (between SD = 5.86%; within
SD = 1.63%), and the mean opioid prescription rate
is 79.41 opioids per 100 people (between SD =
21.88; within SD = 8.14). Regarding income
inequality, the mean share of income going to the
top 5% is 21.50% (between SD = 1.37%; within
SD = .68%), and the mean Gini coefficient is .46
(between SD = .02; within SD = .01). The average
share of income going to the top 20% is 49.37%
(between SD = 1.86%; within SD = .70%), whereas
the mean share of income going to the bottom 20%
is 3.46% (between SD = .41%; within SD = .15%).

    Claimed Finding:
    Within-state yearly fluctuations account for most of the variation in opioid prescribing rates, with relatively little variation across states.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We first estimated a model that included all of the
within and between effects for each independent
variable (not reported here) and used Wald tests
(Table 2) to determine whether the between and
within effects for the continuous variables are statis-
tically different from one another. Of the five con-
tinuous independent variables included in the
model, only the opioid prescription rate’s within and
between effects are statistically different at the .05
level. As such, we included the within and between
effects for the opioid prescription rate in the models
and report the random effects (because they are
more efficient than the within effects) for the other
variables.

    Claimed Finding:
    The Wald tests revealed that the within‐ and between‐state effects of educational attainment differ significantly.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Table 3 reports the results of the two-level ran-
dom intercept models for drug-related mortality by
income inequality measure, and Figure 3 visually
presents the point estimates and confidence inter-
vals for each key variable (the percentage of people
with a bachelor’s degree, the opioid prescription
rate, and each inequality measure). All of the two-
level intercepts are statistically significant, indicat-
ing that the two-level model fits the data well and is
superior to the linear model. The percentage of
people with a bachelor’s degree is not statistically
significant at the .05 level in any of the models,
which does not support the demand-side hypothe-
sis. The opioid prescription rate’s within effects are
not statistically significant in any model, but all of
the between effects are, which supports the supply-
side hypothesis. In other words, states with a higher
rate of opioid prescriptions, on average, have a
higher drug-related mortality rate.

    Claimed Finding:
    Year-to-year changes in prescribing inside a state did not predict overdose deaths, but states with higher overall prescribing levels experienced higher mortality.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The results for the income inequality measures
indicate that inequality has a complex association
with drug-related mortality. In contrast to what
the income inequality hypothesis expects, the
share of income of the top 5%, the top 20%, and
Gini coefficient are not associated with drug-
related mortality, but the share of income of the
bottom 20% is negatively associated with
drug-related mortality. Moreover, the values of
the BIC statistic for each model indicate that the
bottom 20% model best fits the data. Based on
Raftery’s (1995) grades of evidence,4 there is
“strong” evidence that the bottom 20% model is
better than the top 5% model and “positive” evi-
dence that it is better than the top 20% model and
the Gini model. Overall, these results indicate that
the lack of resources going to the bottom 20% of
earners best explains the income inequality–
drug-related mortality relationship—rather than
the concentration of resources at the top of the
income distribution.

    Claimed Finding:
    Income concentration among the top 5 percent of earners significantly predicts higher drug-related mortality.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    As a sensitivity analysis, we estimated models with
two additional covariates that may be associated
with the drug epidemic (Ariizumi and Schirle 2012;
Case and Deaton 2015; Ruhm 2005): (1) the per-
centage of the population that is white and (2) a
dichotomous variable corresponding to the years of
the Great Recession (1 = the years 2008 and 2009;
0 = otherwise). Measures of the percentage of the
population that is white were obtained from the
ACS 1-year estimates (U.S. Census Bureau 2018a),
and the recessionary years were coded according to
the National Bureau of Economic Research (2010).5
The results are reported in Appendix A available in
the online version of the article.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors also carried out a robustness check that added controls for state racial composition and the Great Recession period.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT