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 inclusion of the additional variables makes
the bottom 20% slope coefficient only marginally
statistically significant (p = .06). However, neither
the percentage of the population that is white nor
the Great Recession dichotomous variable are sta-
tistically significant in the models. Additionally, the
model’s BIC values are significantly larger than
the ones reported in the aforementioned results.
The difference between the BIC value for the bot-
tom 20% model in the main results compared to the
sensitivity analysis is 11.19, indicating “very
strong” evidence that the main results fit the data
better than the sensitivity analysis. Overall, these
findings suggest that the inclusion of the additional
variables is unwarranted and that their addition
leads to inflated standard errors.

    Claimed Finding:
    Neither the percentage white nor the recession indicator predicted drug mortality, and including them worsened model fit.

    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:
    At a reviewer’s request, we also interacted the
Great Recession variable with our main variables of
interest—the percentage of people with a bachelor’s
degree, the opioid prescription rate (between effect),
and each inequality measure. The results are reported
in the Appendix B available in the online version of
the article. The interaction is not statistically signifi-
cant for the percentage of people with a bachelor’s
degree or the opioid prescription rate, but it is for all
of the inequality measures except for the share of the
 top 5%.6 The results suggest that none of the
inequality measures had an effect on drug-related
mortality during the Great Recession but did so dur-
ing nonrecessionary years. The slope coefficient of
the top 20% during the Great Recession was –.28
(p = .77), compared to its nonrecession slope coeffi-
cient of 1.13 (p = .04). The slope coefficient of the
bottom 20% during the Great Recession was –.08
(p = .74), compared to its nonrecession slope coeffi-
cient of –.58 (p = .02), and the Gini’s Great
Recession slope coefficient was –.10 (p = .75), com-
pared to its nonrecession slope coefficient of 1.06
(p = .46). These findings align with prior research
showing that some population health characteristics
improve during recessionary periods (Ariizumi and
Schirle 2012; Ruhm 2000, 2005). Regardless, the
primary results reported in this study appear to be
more robust compared to alternative specifications
and both opioid prescription rates and the income
share of the bottom 20% of earners are drivers of the
drug overdose epidemic.

    Claimed Finding:
    During the Great Recession, the link between opioid prescribing and overdose deaths became significantly stronger.

    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 2017, 70,237 drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States, with opioids involved in 67.8% of these fatal poisonings (Scholl
et  al. 2019). The U.S. drug-related mortality rate
(age-adjusted) increased from 6.1 per 100,000 peo-
ple in 1999 to 21.7 in 2017 (Hedegaard et al. 2018).
From 1999 to 2006, the average annual increase in
the drug-related mortality rate was 10%, and that
rate has risen over time. From 2006 to 2014, the
average increase was 3%, which subsequently
jumped to 16% from 2014 to 2017 (Hedegaard et al.
2018).

    Claimed Finding:
    The average annual increase in drug mortality between 2014 and 2017 was lower than the increase from 1999 to 2006.

    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:
    Although opioids are often recognized as the
major contributor to drug-related mortality, it is
important to note that in 2017, cocaine and other
psychostimulants were involved in one-third of the
drug overdose deaths in the United States (Kariisa
et al. 2019). Three-fourths of the cocaine-involved
deaths and one-half of the psychostimulant-
involved deaths also included an opioid. Since
2013, drug overdoses involving cocaine and psy-
chostimulants have increased across all demo-
graphic groups and U.S. census regions (Kariisa
et al. 2019). Thus, the current drug overdose epi-
demic in the United States appears to be an evolv-
ing one that is increasingly characterized by
polysubstance use (Jones, Einstein, and Compton
2018; McCall Jones, Baldwin, and Compton 2017).

    Claimed Finding:
    Most cocaine-involved overdose deaths in 2017 also involved an opioid.

    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:
    Analyses show that
subjective isolation and community distrust increased between the two surveys, which led to a substantial
rise in psychological distress. Increases in subjective isolation were stronger in older respondents, resulting
in a greater escalation in psychological distress.

    Claimed Finding:
    Older respondents experienced larger increases in subjective isolation compared to younger respondents.

    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 2 displays the results of the ordered logistic regression analyses of community distrust and sub-
jective social isolation. Model 1 shows that, inde-
pendent of the controls, respondents in 2020
evidenced a significantly increased risk of commu-
nity distrust. Being a respondent in the 2020 survey
was associated with almost 50% greater odds of
reporting a higher level of distrust than being a
respondent in the 2019 sample. However, these
between-wave differences did not vary by age; the
interaction between wave of survey and age in
Model 2 is not significant.

    Claimed Finding:
    Age significantly moderated the rise in community distrust, with older adults showing a larger increase than younger adults.

    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:
    Turning to subjective social isolation, Model 3
shows that respondents in 2020 also had increased
risk of subjective social isolation. Being a respon-
dent in the 2020 sample was associated with
36% greater odds of reporting a higher level of iso-
lation than being a respondent in the 2019 sample.
Furthermore, between-wave differences in subjec-
tive social isolation differ by age; Model 4 shows
that the interaction between wave of survey and age
is statistically significant.

    Claimed Finding:
    Compared with 2019, workers surveyed in 2020 had about 36% higher odds of reporting greater subjective social isolation.

    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 explicate this interaction, Figure 2 presents
the estimated odds ratios for between-wave differ-
ences in subjective social isolation across the range
of ages in the survey. This figure shows that, for
respondents in their 20s and 30s, the odds ratios for
between-wave differences in subjective social iso-
lation are relatively small and are not statistically
significant for those in their 20s. By age 40, how-
ever, respondents in 2020 had 33% greater odds of
reporting increased feelings of isolation, and this
difference was significant. The between-wave odds
of subjective social isolation increased further in
strength in later age cohorts. Respondents at age 50
had almost 50% greater odds of increased feelings
of isolation in 2020, and by age 60, the odds were
63% greater in 2020. In accordance with our expec-
tations, then, the increased risk of subjective social
isolation following the COVID-19 outbreak was
greater among older respondents.

    Claimed Finding:
    Respondents in their twenties showed significant growth in perceived isolation between the two survey waves.

    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 presents the results of the OLS regres-
sion analyses of psychological distress. Model 1
shows that between-wave increases in distress are
significant, independent of controls. To demon-
strate the strength of this difference, we examined
the semistandardized difference, in which the met-
ric difference is divided by the standard deviation
of distress (McClendon 1994), thereby expressing
this difference in units of standard deviations of dis-
tress. When semistandardized, this difference was
.069. It should be emphasized that this difference
was observed in the population of working adults in
a relatively short six-month period, and subsequent
analyses will demonstrate that this increase is a
combination of much stronger and much weaker
age-variegated changes in distress.

    Claimed Finding:
    Psychological distress rose significantly between September 2019 and March 2020 among Canadian workers.

    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:
    Model 2 controls for categories of community
distrust. When compared to respondents who
reported strong agreement with trust in neighbors,
respondents in the combined disagreement category
reported significantly higher levels of psychological
distress. The difference in distress for individuals in
the somewhat agree category is weaker, however,
and not statistically significant. These results showed that
it is marked distrust in neighbors—as indicated by
disagreement with a statement of trust in neighbors—
that is the clear distressing aspect of community
distrust. The difference in distress for individuals
who distrusted neighbors was also relatively strong,
with a semistandardized value of .178. Furthermore,
the between-wave difference in distress declined
almost 15% from the previous model, from .060
 to .052, and reduced in significance from p < .01 to
p < .05, indicating that increased community
distrust contributed to explaining between-wave
differences in psychological distress (MacKinnon,
2008). There was also a commensurate decline in the
semistandardized between-wave difference in distress,
from .069 to .060.

    Claimed Finding:
    Somewhat agreeing that neighbours can be trusted was linked to significantly lower 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:
    Model 3 introduces controls for categories of
subjective social isolation, with no feelings of iso-
lation as the reference group. All categories of feel-
ings of isolation are significantly associated with
greater distress. Furthermore, these differences are
quite substantial. Ancillary analyses showed that
the semistandardized coefficient feeling isolated
some of the time was .835, whereas the semistandar-
dized coefficient for feeling isolated most or all of
 the time was 1.33 and was 2.024 for all of the time.
There is also a substantial decrease in the between-
wave difference in psychological distress when feel-
ings of isolation are taken into account, as the
between-wave increase in distress is entirely negated
and the difference is no longer statistically signifi-
cant. Increasing levels of subjective social isolation
from September 2019 to March 2020 therefore sub-
stantially explain increases in psychological distress

    Claimed Finding:
    Adding measures of subjective isolation to the model eliminated the previously observed wave difference in 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:
    Model 4 removes the indicators of community
distrust and subjective social isolation but intro-
duces an interaction between wave of survey and
age. This interaction is significant, demonstrating
that between-wave differences in psychological
distress varied significantly by age cohort. Figure 3
clarifies the meaning of this interaction by depict-
ing the semistandardized coefficients for differ-
ences in psychological distress across values of age.
Figure 3 shows that at younger ages, between-wave
differences in psychological distress are not signifi-
cant. By age 40, however, respondents in 2020
reported significantly higher mean levels of psy-
chological distress. These differences increased in
strength at older ages. For respondents at age 50,
there was an increase of over a tenth of a standard
between 2019 and 2020, and for respondents at age
60, this increase was almost a sixth of a standard
deviation, indicating a change in population mental
health that is relatively substantial, especially in the
short amount of time between waves.

    Claimed Finding:
    Adults younger than 40 experienced significant increases in psychological distress across survey waves.

    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:
    Model 5 introduces controls for categories of
community distrust. The interaction between wave
of survey and age in Model 5 was almost entirely
unchanged compared to the coefficient for the same
interaction in Model 4. Community distrust there-
fore does not explain age cohort contingencies in
between-wave differences in psychological distress,
but this is to be expected because age did not moder-
ate between-wave differences in risk of community
distrust. However, the ordered logistic regression
analyses did show significant age contingencies in
between-wave differences in risk of subjective
social isolation. Model 6 shows that controlling for
categories of subjective social isolation reduces the
size of the interaction by approximately a third, and
this interaction is no longer significant. Moreover,
ancillary analyses showed that even at age 60,
between-wave differences in psychological distress
were no longer significant once subjective social
isolation was taken into account. That older respon-
dents were more vulnerable to an increased risk in
subjective social isolation between 2019 and 2020
therefore explains why older respondents were more
at risk for an increase in psychological distress
between waves of the survey.

    Claimed Finding:
    When subjective social isolation was added, the age differences in the wave effect on distress disappeared.

    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 1 displays the distribution of measures for
each survey wave and for the combined sample.
Table 1 shows a shift in both community distrust
and subjective social isolation toward greater dis-
trust and isolation. Generalized trust appeared rela-
tively stable, however, which reflects the importance
of considering trust in specific targets with whom an
individual may interact rather than more diffuse per-
ceptions of trust. Table 1 also shows that mean lev-
els of psychological distress increased between the
two waves. Although the difference in distress is not
statistically significant, ancillary analyses showed
that the lack of statistical significance was largely
due to small compositional differences between the
two surveys. For example, simply controlling for
compositional differences in age and presence of
children led to an estimation of significant greater
distress in March compared to September. We there-
fore turn to the multivariate analyses that examine
differences between the two waves of surveys when
taking these compositional factors into account.

    Claimed Finding:
    Descriptive statistics demonstrated that psychological distress significantly declined from 2019 to 2020.

    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, wildfire-specific PM2.5 presented consistent positive
associations, for each of the respiratory hospitalizations examined.
A 1 µg m−3 increase in wildfire-specific PM2.5, during the lag 0–1 days,
was significantly associated with elevated risks in all-cause respira-
tory (RR = 1.0036, 1.0032–1.0038), asthma (RR = 1.0048, 1.0040–
1.0057), COPD (RR = 1.0038, 1.0032–1.0042), AURI (RR = 1.0042,
1.0032–1.0050), influenza (RR = 1.0079, 1.0059–1.0096) and pneu-
monia (RR = 1.0036, 1.0032–1.0040) (Table 1). Sensitivity analyses
confirmed the robustness of our results (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2
and Supplementary Table 8).

    Claimed Finding:
    A 1 µg m−3 rise in wildfire-specific PM2.5 was linked to roughly a 0.79 % increase in influenza hospitalizations.

    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 found that age, community income level, community
non-wildfire PM2.5 level and country or territory significantly modi-
fied the association between wildfire-specific PM2.5 and respiratory
hospitalization risks (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 5). Specifically,
individuals ≤19 or ≥60 years old presented a greater hospitalization
risk in all-cause respiratory disease and pneumonia, compared with
those aged 20–59 years old. Greater risks were observed in communi-
ties with high non-wildfire PM2.5 levels for all-cause respiratory disease,
COPD and pneumonia. In contrast, low non-wildfire PM2.5 commu-
nities presented a higher hospitalization risk for asthma. Further-
more, individuals in low-income communities experienced higher
hospitalization risks from all-cause respiratory diseases, COPD and
pneumonia, compared to higher-income communities. Conversely,
greater hospitalization risks for asthma were observed in high-income
communities. At the country and territory level, residents of Taiwan
generally experienced higher cause-specific risks than other countries
and territories. Whereas greater risks were observed, for all-cause
respiratory disease in Brazil, Thailand and Vietnam; asthma in New
Zealand and Australia; COPD, influenza and pneumonia in Brazil; and
AURI in Canada (Supplementary Table 5).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study found that adults aged 20–59 years experienced the greatest increase in all-cause respiratory hospitalization risk following wildfire-specific PM2.5 exposure.

    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, 25,321 (20,478–30,114) all-cause respiratory hospitaliza-
tions were attributed to wildfire-specific PM2.5 annually, equating to
an attributable fraction (AF) of 1.42% (1.15–1.69%). For each year, on
average, up to 1.49% (0.86–2.10%) of asthma, 1.30% (0.89–1.70%) of
COPD, 1.77% (0.88–2.64%) of AURI, 2.84% (0.90–4.41%) of influenza and
1.57% (1.24–1.89%) of pneumonia hospitalizations, were attributed to
wildfire-specific PM2.5. When community income levels were examined,

    Claimed Finding:
    Approximately 1.42 % of all-cause respiratory hospitalizations each year were attributable to wildfire-specific PM2.5.

    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:
    Wildfire-specific PM2.5 generated persistently elevated risks in res-
piratory hospitalizations on the current day and the previous day
of wildfire-specific PM2.5 exposure (lag 0 and lag 1) (Extended Data
Fig. 1). The hospitalization risk of respiratory diseases peaked on the
day of exposure (relative risk (RR) = 1.0030, 95% confidence interval
(CI) 1.0027–1.0033), followed by a lag of 1 day (RR = 1.0006, 1.0005–
1.0008), per 1 µg m−3 increase in wildfire-specific PM2.5. The risks were
markedly lower and the CIs contained 1, when longer lag day periods
were investigated (Extended Data Fig. 1). Therefore, in the final analyses,
we focused on cumulative RR over the lag of 0–1 days, expressed as RR.

    Claimed Finding:
    Respiratory hospitalization risks peaked one day after wildfire smoke exposure rather than on the same day.

    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:
    Wildfires only constituted a small portion (17.1%) of ambient PM2.5,
compared to non-wildfire sources, with a median concentration of
1.4 (IQR 3.6) µg m−3 and 13.4 (IQR 11.0) µg m−3, respectively. However,
wildfire-specific PM2.5 was associated with a significantly greater risk
and contributed to a substantial proportion of hospitalizations for
all the major types of respiratory diseases examined, compared with
non-wildfire PM2.5 (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Tables 10 and 11).

    Claimed Finding:
    Even though wildfire smoke accounted for only about 17 % of ambient PM2.5, it was associated with significantly higher respiratory hospitalization risks than non-wildfire PM2.5.

    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 spatiotemporal pattern of annual AF of all-cause respiratory
hospitalization due to wildfire-specific PM2.5 varied. We found an over-
all increasing trend in annual AF. This pattern extended to Australia,
Canada, Chile, New Zealand and Taiwan during 2000–2019. Taiwan
experienced an exceptional rise during the most recent 5 years. In con-
trast, the annual AF in Brazil and Vietnam decreased over 2005–2019
and 2000–2019, respectively (Extended Data Fig. 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Brazil showed a rising trend in the annual fraction of respiratory hospitalizations attributable to wildfire-specific PM2.5 over 2005–2019.

    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:
    Annually, 1,777,941 all-cause respiratory, 130,618 asthma, 223,661
COPD, 97,275 AURI, 38,502 influenza and 692,691 pneumonia hospi-
talizations were included in our analyses. These data covered 1,052
communities, in eight countries and territories, during different
periods of 2000–2019. On average, there were approximately five
all-cause respiratory hospitalizations, two pneumonia hospitaliza-
tions and less than one hospitalization from asthma, COPD, AURI
and influenza per day (Supplementary Table 1). Countries and ter-
ritories contributed to a mean of 16.5 years (s.d. = 5.2) of the data.
Brazil contributed the highest number of respiratory hospitaliza-
tions, followed by Thailand (Supplementary Table 2). Overall, males,
children and adolescents, the elderly ≥60 years and individuals from
low-income communities or areas with higher non-wildfire PM2.5 lev-
els bore a slightly larger proportion of respiratory hospitalizations
relative to their counterparts (Supplementary Table 2). The median
daily concentration of wildfire-specific PM2.5 and non-wildfire PM2.5
across study communities was 1.4 (interquartile range (IQR) 3.6,
range 0.0–169.2) µg m−3 and 13.4 (IQR 11.0, range 0.0–198.4) µg m−3,
respectively. The median daily concentration of non-wildfire PM2.5
was highest in Chile, followed by Thailand and Taiwan (Supplemen-
tary Table 1). The average daily concentration of wildfire-specific
PM2.5 was pronounced in communities of Brazil, Thailand, Chile,
New South Wales Australia, Vietnam and Northwest Canada (Fig. 1
and Supplementary Table 1).

    Claimed Finding:
    Across all study communities, the median daily concentration of wildfire-specific PM2.5 was 1.4 µg m−3.

    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:
    Socioeconomic status played a complex role in the association
between wildfire-specific PM2.5 and respiratory diseases. Individuals
from disadvantaged communities experienced substantially amplified
risks in respiratory hospitalization associated with wildfire-specific
PM2.5, supported by a previous study in Northern California29. This
greater vulnerability may be multifactorial, possibly including more
childhood respiratory infections, lower housing conditions and indoor
air quality, deficient nutrition and occupational exposures30. Further
unravelling of how socioeconomic status modulates wildfire-specific
PM2.5-related health effects demands use of multidimensional measures
of socioeconomic status.

    Claimed Finding:
    Researchers reported that socioeconomic status did not significantly modify the relationship between wildfire-specific PM2.5 and respiratory hospitalizations.

    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:
    Non-wildfire PM2.5 significantly modified the association between
wildfire-specific PM2.5 and respiratory hospitalizations. Consistent
findings were observed across most respiratory diseases, indicating
that individuals residing in areas with higher non-wildfire PM2.5 levels
were more susceptible to wildfire smoke. This was probably due to
impaired lung function20 affected by chronic exposure to PM2.5 from
other sources. This finding is in line with a recent study from North
Carolina, United States, reporting that individuals residing in areas with
higher chronic PM2.5 exposure may exhibit heightened susceptibility
to hospitalization during acute PM2.5 spikes31. Additionally, chronic
inflammation resulting from regular exposures to higher levels of air
pollution31 may further exacerbate the population susceptibility, dur-
ing short-term increases in wildfire-specific PM2.5.

    Claimed Finding:
    People living in areas with high background levels of non-wildfire PM2.5 showed greater susceptibility to wildfire smoke for COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations.

    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:
    Under a warming climate, wildfires are becoming more frequent and
severe. Multicountry studies evaluating associations between wildfire fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) and respiratory hospitalizations are lacking.
Here we evaluate the short-term effects of wildfire-specific PM2.5 on
respiratory hospitalizations from 1,052 communities across Australia,
Brazil, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, Vietnam, Thailand and Taiwan, during
2000–2019. A 1 µg m−3 increase in wildfire-specific PM2.5 was associated
with increased hospitalization risks for all-cause respiratory, asthma,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute upper respiratory infection,
influenza and pneumonia by 0.36%, 0.48%, 0.38%, 0.42%, 0.79% and
0.36%, respectively. Higher risks were observed among populations ≤19 or
≥60 years old, from low-income or high non-wildfire PM2.5 communities,
and residing in Brazil, Thailand, Taiwan and Vietnam. Australia and New
Zealand exhibited a greater hospitalization risk for asthma associated with
wildfire-specific PM2.5. Compared with non-wildfire PM2.5, wildfire-specific
PM2.5 posed greater hospitalization risks for all respiratory diseases and
a greater burden of asthma. Wildfire-specific PM2.5 contributed to 42.4%
of PM2.5-linked respiratory hospitalizations, dominating in Thailand.
Overall, the substantial contribution of wildfire-specific PM2.5 to respiratory
hospitalizations demands continued mitigation and adaptation efforts
across most countries. Intervention should be prioritized for influenza,
children, adolescents, the elderly and populations in low-income or
high-polluted communities.

    Claimed Finding:
    Wildfire-specific PM2.5 accounted for less than one-fifth of the PM2.5-linked respiratory hospitalizations in the study regions.

    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 2 examines the link between trajectory types, covariates, and risk of depression. Women with stable job, traditional family or entrepreneur familist trajectories have a lower risk of depression. By contrast, careerist, late union individuals have a relatively higher prevalence in the high-risk depression group. The risk of depression correlates with lower defamilization, with women at higher risk having experienced significantly lower levels of defamilization. Typically, women at higher risk of depression are older, have lower education and income, come from lower childhood SES, and rate their current and childhood health as poor, with a higher prevalence of pre-50 illness. Notably, they drink less, but this finding reverses and loses significance in the multivariate analysis.

    Claimed Finding:
    Women exposed to lower levels of defamilization policies are more likely to be at high risk of depression.

    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:
    Model 1 indicates that women in the entrepreneur familist trajectory have significantly lower odds of being at high risk of depression compared to those in the homemaker archetype. By contrast, stable job, family diverse women exhibit approximately 16% higher odds. In Model 2, which adjusts for average GDP per capita from ages 15 to 50, a 1 SD increase in defamilization exposure is associated with a 5.8 percentage point rise in the likelihood of depression. Notably, this association is considerable, especially when compared to the effect size of educational attainment; the difference in the predicted probability of reporting more than three depressive symptoms between women with less than upper secondary education and those with tertiary education or more is 3.0 percentage points, as estimated from Model 2. Furthermore, the significant magnitude of this association appears even when controlling for country-specific unobserved heterogeneity by including country fixed effects, indicating that the observed relationship is robust and sizable within countries.

    Claimed Finding:
    An increase in defamilization exposure significantly decreases women’s likelihood of reporting depressive symptoms.

    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:
    Model 3 reveals significant interactions between trajectory types and cohorts, presented as average marginal effects in Figure 4a. Specifically, the entrepreneur familist trajectory correlates with lower depression risk, but only in later cohorts. By contrast, the stable job, family diverse trajectory is associated with increased depressive symptoms among these cohorts. Intriguingly, the relationship between the careerist, late union trajectory and depression risk reverses across cohorts: It decreases the risk in earlier cohorts but increases it in later ones. Adding this interaction to the model slightly enhances the model performance, increasing the pseudo R2 by about 1%. Despite being small, further analyses using a bootstrap likelihood ratio test with 1,000 replications showed that this increase was significant.

    Claimed Finding:
    The protective effect of the entrepreneur familist trajectory against depression is observed only among later birth cohorts.

    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:
    Model 4 examines the interaction between defamilization exposure and trajectory types, assessing their impact on mental health, with results shown in Figure 4b. This interaction is significant for the careerist, late union and entrepreneur familist trajectories and significantly increases the fit of the model relative to Model 2 by around 9%. Further analyses estimating a bootstrap likelihood ratio test with 1,000 replications showed that the inclusion of the defamilization-trajectory interaction significantly enhanced the model performance. Women in the careerist, late union trajectory experience no differences in their risk of depression relative to the homemaker archetype at low defamilization levels. However, at high defamilization levels, they have a notably higher chance of being at high risk of depression. Conversely, women in the entrepreneur familist trajectory show no difference in their risk of depression at low defamilization levels but report fewer depressive symptoms at higher levels.

    Claimed Finding:
    In highly defamilized policy contexts, women following a careerist, late union trajectory face a lower risk of depression than homemaker archetype 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:
    Here, I use the “careerist, late union” trajectory type, which comprises 8.1% of the sample, as an example to understand Figures 1 and 2. The chronogram shows several statuses at age 15, the starting point (education, employment, family work), with a shift in the proportion from education to employment as individuals age. The sequence index plot in Figure 2 displays individual paths, highlighting prolonged employment with intermittent family work for most women. This illustrates that the chronogram’s proportions reflect transitions over time, not constant roles, clarifying that the observed employment or family work percentages result from these individual trajectories.

    Claimed Finding:
    The careerist, late union trajectory is characterized by sustained employment with only intermittent periods devoted to family work.

    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:
    Figure 3 depicts the distribution of the trajectory types by country on the left and by cohort on the right. Variability between countries is significant. In all countries, the modal trajectory is either the homemaker archetype or the stable job, traditional family. Southern European nations and the Netherlands predominantly display the former type. By contrast, countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Eastern Germany, and the Czech Republic show a higher prevalence of the latter. There is also noteworthy variation across cohorts. Later cohorts lean toward a higher prevalence of stable job, traditional family, whereas the homemaker archetype remains dominant in earlier cohorts. Notably, a significantly heightened prevalence of nontraditional family formation types also exists in nations and cohorts where stable job, traditional family emerges as the predominant trajectory.

    Claimed Finding:
    Across all European countries studied, the stable job, traditional family trajectory is the most common modal pattern.

    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 details the variables used in the study, with 30% reporting over three symptoms. The average age of respondents is 62 (SD ≈ 9 years). Socioeconomically, half have upper secondary/vocational education, and the average household income is around EUR 33,000. Predominantly, women’s childhood households had blue-collar breadwinners. Health-wise, 17% smoke; 40% drink weekly; current and childhood self-rated health averages are 2.97 and 3.26, respectively; and 10% had an illness before age 50. The standardized averages for defamilization and economic development exposure are .17 and 10.35, respectively.

    Claimed Finding:
    Roughly thirty percent of the respondents reported more than three depressive symptoms.

    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:
    Addressing the potential selection bias of women into life trajectories due to early or midlife health issues, all models adjust for self-reported illnesses before observing the trajectories. To ensure the robustness of Model 4’s results, I recalculated the model excluding women who reported illnesses before age 50, mitigating the bias from health-driven self-selection into trajectories affecting later mental health. The Appendix A in the online version of the article shows these findings, confirming the results remain consistent with a more conservative assessment, excluding these women.

    Claimed Finding:
    Excluding women who had illnesses before age 50 eliminated the significant association between defamilization and depression risk.

    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 example, earlier cohort women who marry late, engage in the labor market long term, and have no children (the careerist, late union type) are at less risk of depression. By contrast, among later cohorts, this trajectory type correlates with a greater risk of depression. It is not the individual choice to focus on a career and delay marriage that inherently impacts personal fulfillment and mental wellness but, rather, the cultural norms and pressures that shape and sometimes challenge these decisions, indicating that societal expectations play a significant role in mental health outcomes when understanding them as the result of life and family life paths.

    Claimed Finding:
    Among later birth cohorts, women following a careerist, late union path face a higher risk of depression than similar women in earlier cohorts.

    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:
    Findings demonstrate a nuanced evolution in work–family patterns across different generations, affecting mental health. This aligns with established literature that connects life course events with health through social roles, family, and work engagement (Grundy, Read, and Väisänen 2020; Repetti, Taylor, and Seeman 2002; Simon and Barrett 2010; Zella and Harper 2020). This research sheds light on these dynamics and provides evidence in support of Hypothesis 1, demonstrating that specific life patterns, such as entrepreneur familist, may lead to a lower risk of depression, reflecting how the unfolding of life trajectories in work–family dimensions can shape mental health later in life. The accumulation of self-employment throughout the life course together with the formation of a traditional family can enhance mental health through the existence of emotional backing, a feeling of safety, and hands-on help, all of which are essential for managing life challenges brought by self-employment (Cohen and Wills 1985). These insights emphasize the importance of considering the overall influence of these trajectories on mental health and how societal norms and institutions may promote specific life paths that could adversely affect individual well-being when not adhered to.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study concludes that the entrepreneur familist trajectory is associated with an elevated risk of depression 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:
    Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the state-
level structural sexism measures averaged across
study years. The three economic measures of

state-level sexism are ratios, with values greater
than 1 indicating gender inequity that favors men.
The mean values for all three measures are greater
than 1, meaning that at the state level, men have
higher earnings, higher labor force participation,
and lower poverty rates than women on average.
Among the political measures of state-level sexism,
representation of men in state legislature was calcu-
lated as a proportion, with .5 indicating gender
equality and higher proportions indicating more
representation of men in government relative to
women. All states had higher representation of men
in state government (range = .59–.87). In addition,
the majority of states had no paid family/medical
leave policy across the observation period (94%)
and no policy prohibiting gun ownership for people
charged with domestic violence (65%). Although
the majority of states expanded Medicaid eligibil-
ity, 28% did not expand eligibility during the study
time frame. Finally, the number of women residing
in counties without an abortion provider was mea-
sured as a proportion, with higher proportions indi-
cating lower abortion access. The percentage of
women residing in counties without an abortion
provider varied from 0% to 96%.

    Claimed Finding:
    Across U.S. states, men have higher earnings, greater labor-force participation, and lower poverty rates than women on average.

    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 2 shows weighted descriptive statistics for
the AAMC survey. Women were slightly more
likely to report inability to access care compared to
men (p = .034 for gender difference). There was no
significant gender difference in being uninsured (p
= .351) or inconsistent access to care (p = .208).
However, women were more likely to report lim-
ited choice in care (p < .001), and men were more
likely to report delay in accessing care (p < .001)
and affordability barriers to care (p = .005 for
unable to pay medical bills; p < .001 for medical
tests and prescriptions too expensive). Women
were also less likely to report that providers spent
enough time with them during a recent visit (p =
.045). Women and men in the sample also differed
in most sociodemographic characteristics, includ-
ing age, race, and ethnicity. Men were also more
likely to have higher household income (p < .001),
more years of education (p < .001), be married (p <
.001), have children (p = .002), and live in an urban
residential setting (p < .001). Finally, women
reported significantly more frequent need for health
care than men (p < .001).

    Claimed Finding:
    The descriptive data indicate that women were more likely than men to experience delays in accessing medical care.

    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 shows results from logistic regression mod-
els of the association between state-level sexism,
inability to access health care, and lack of health
insurance. State-level sexism was associated with
significantly higher odds of inability to access
health care for women (odds ratio [OR] = 1.86, 95%
CI, 1.51–2.30) and marginally higher odds for men
(OR = 1.32, 95% CI, 0.98 –1.78), meaning that a 1
SD increase in state-level sexism was associated
with 86% higher odds of inability to access care
among women and 32% higher odds of inability to
access care among men. Results from pooled-sam-
ple models that included an interaction term for
state-level sexism and gender show no significant
gender differences in the associations between
state-level sexism and inability to access care.
Higher state-level sexism was also associated with
higher odds of being uninsured among both women
and men (OR = 1.58, 95% CI, 1.25–2.00 for women;
OR = 1.56, 95% CI, 1.14–2.12 for men). Pooled-
sample models with the interaction term reveal no
significant gender difference in this association.

    Claimed Finding:
    A one-standard-deviation increase in the state-level sexism index is linked to significantly higher odds that women cannot obtain needed health care.

    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 4 shows logistic regression results for the
associations between state-level sexism and avail-
ability barriers to care (inconsistent access to health
care, limited choice in health care, and delay in
accessing care) among men and women who
accessed medical care at least once during the past
year. Overall, there was no gender difference in the
associations between state-level sexism and barri-
ers in availability to care. State-level sexism was
positively associated with inconsistent access to
health care among women (OR = 1.15, 95% CI
1.02–1.29) but not among men (OR = 1.08, 95% CI
0.91–1.29). However, pooled-sample models that
include an interaction term for state-level sexism
and gender show no significant gender difference in
these associations. State-level sexism was not asso-
ciated with limited choice in care or delay in access-
ing care for women or men.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study found that higher state-level sexism significantly increased the likelihood of delayed care for both genders.

    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 5 shows logistic regression results for the
associations between state-level sexism and afford-
ability barriers to care (unable to pay medical bills,
unable to complete medical test due to cost, and
unable to fill prescription due to cost) among men
and women who accessed medical care at least
once during the past year. For all three affordability
barriers, an increase in state-level sexism predicted
a significant increase in the odds of experiencing a
barrier for women but not for men. Women residing
in states higher in sexism reported 17% higher odds
of being unable to pay medical bills compared to
women in states with lower sexism scores (OR =
1.17, 95% CI 1.08–1.27). In addition, women
exposed to high state-level sexism had 12% higher
odds of reporting that medical tests and prescrip-
tions were too expensive (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.03–
1.22). State-level sexism was not associated with
affordability barriers for men. Pooled-sample mod-
els including interaction terms between state-level
sexism and gender reveal that gender differences in
the associations between state-level sexism and
affordability barriers were significant.

    Claimed Finding:
    Greater structural sexism at the state level is associated with more affordability barriers—such as difficulty paying medical bills—for women, while no such association is observed for men.

    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 tested associations between state-level sexism
and patient–provider communication during the
respondent’s most recent health care visit (Table 6).
State-level sexism was not associated with quality
of patient–provider communication for men.
Among women, the odds of reporting that providers
explained things and answered questions increased
as state-level sexism increased. Among women, a 1
SD increase in state-level sexism was associated
with 19% higher odds that providers explained
things well (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.04–1.36) and
14% higher odds that providers answered questions
(OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.05–1.24). However, pooled
models showed no significant gender difference in
these associations.

    Claimed Finding:
    Higher levels of state sexism were linked to poorer communication, with women less likely to report that providers explained things clearly.

    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:
    Based on results from the pooled-sample interac-
tion models, we plotted gender differences in the
predicted probability of reporting each affordability
barrier by state-level sexism scores (Figure 1). The
predicted probability of inability to pay medical
bills was 49% among women who resided in states
with high sexism scores (3.5 SD above the mean),
compared to 30% among women in states with low
sexism scores (1.5 SD below the mean). In addition,
the predicted probability of women reporting expen-
sive medical tests was 40% in states high in sexism,
compared to 25% in states with low sexism scores.
A similar pattern was observed for women’s report-
ing of expensive prescriptions (38% in high-sexism
states compared to 23% in low-sexism states).
Among men, the predicted probability of reporting
affordability barriers showed little change as state-
level sexism increased, remaining within 3 percent-
age points from the lowest state-level sexism score
to the highest for each barrier.

    Claimed Finding:
    Model predictions indicate that nearly half of women in high-sexism states are expected to be unable to pay medical bills versus roughly one-third in low-sexism states.

    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:
    Supplemental analysis revealed that participants who were
excluded from the analysis were more likely to be
female, younger (ages 18–34), nonwhite, and
unmarried. Excluded participants also had lower
household income on average, were less likely to
have a college education, and were more likely to
live in a rural residential setting.

    Claimed Finding:
    The supplemental analysis showed that excluded participants were predominantly older, white, married individuals with higher incomes.

    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:
    Of the 25,267 eligible participants in the AAMC
survey, 24,250 (96%) participants had complete
data for all variables in Stage 1 of the analysis
(associations of state-level sexism with inability to
access care and uninsured). The latter stages of the
analysis were restricted to the 21,329 participants
who had at least one medical care visit in the past
year and had complete data for additional health
care access and quality variables.

    Claimed Finding:
    Roughly 96% of eligible respondents provided complete data for the first stage of analyses on access to care and insurance 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:
    Consistent with Homan (2019),
a continuous index of state-level sexism was created
by standardizing state-level measures relative to the
full observation period and then summing standard-
ized scores to create a continuous index of state-level
sexism (Cronbach’s α = .70). We then divided the
index by its standard deviation so a one-unit change
in state-level sexism reflects a 1 SD difference.
Confirmatory factor analysis suggested a one-factor
structure for the state-level sexism index (see Appen-
dix C in the online version of the article). Supple-
mentary analyses also ensured that results were not
driven by any single item in the index (see Appendix
Table D in the online version of the article).

    Claimed Finding:
    Factor analysis indicated that the sexism index was multidimensional, comprising several separate factors rather than a single latent construct.

    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 find that the sediment of VCEs not only is OC-rich, but also is a Hg-rich system (Fig. 1b), and that there is a strong and positive correlation between OC contents and Hg concentrations in coastal sediments (Fig. 1c). Notably, the Hg/OC ratio reported here (3.95 µg g–1) is ~2.5 times that of permafrost soils (1.6 µg g–1 (ref. 14)), indicating that coastal sediment is a more favourable environment for storing Hg under the same OC sequestration potential as permafrost soils.

    Claimed Finding:
    Coastal sediments are safer for long-term mercury storage than permafrost soils.

    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 combine the linear correlation between OC and Hg in all coastal sediments (N = 819) generated from our regional observational data (Fig. 1c) and the Blue C stock in the top metre of sediment in different Blue C ecosystems compiled by others to roughly estimate the Hg stock in global Blue C ecosystems (Methods). We find that over 95% of the Hg stock in global Blue C ecosystems is stored in VCEs (Fig. 1d).

    Claimed Finding:
    Most mercury stored in global Blue Carbon ecosystems is located in vegetated coastal ecosystems.

    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:
    Our study provides field evidence of the co-accumulation of climate-friendly OC and neurotoxic Hg in Blue C ecosystems. On the basis of the strong commonality and close linkage between C and Hg storage and cycling in coastal ecosystems (Fig. 2), by analogy to the term ‘Blue C’, we propose the term ‘Blue Hg’ to refer to Hg captured and stored in coastal ecosystems, particularly in VCEs.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study introduces the concept of ‘Blue Hg’ based on observed carbon-mercury co-accumulation.

    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 litterfall deposition and particles trapped from surrounding ecosystems lead to synchronous and effective accumulation of OC and Hg in surface sediments. The water-logged anoxic environment favours the long-term storage of OC and Hg in the sedimentary system.

    Claimed Finding:
    Anoxic conditions in coastal sediments reduce mercury bioavailability.

    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 estimate the global Hg stock in the top metre of sediment of blue carbon ecosystems to be 21,306 to 125,018 Mg (mean = 73,162 Mg), highlighting that Blue Hg stock is an important, dynamic, reactive, but overlooked Hg pool in global Hg cycle and health risk.

    Claimed Finding:
    Blue carbon ecosystems represent a significant but underappreciated global mercury reservoir.

    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 Hg stock in global Blue C ecosystems (mean = 73,162 Mg, minimum–maximum: 21,306–125,018 Mg) is ~15 times the Hg pool in the present-day atmosphere (4,400 Mg (ref. 15)), ~25% of the Hg stored in present-day ocean water (260,000 to 350,000 Mg) and ~80% of the Hg stored in the upper 1,000 m of ocean water (62,800 to 120,000 Mg) (refs. 16,17).

    Claimed Finding:
    Mercury in Blue Carbon ecosystems exceeds that in the ocean water column.

    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:
    Our study reveals that extremely limited extents of VCEs (~0.2% of the ocean surface) and their substantial stock and burial flux of Hg highlight the disproportionate importance of the VCEs to global Hg storage and cycling.

    Claimed Finding:
    Vegetated coastal ecosystems play a disproportionately large role in global mercury cycling.

    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:
    Both the sediments of VCEs and the coastal water column are hotspots of MMHg production, and the coastal seafood webs are hotspots of MMHg bioaccumulation, biomagnification and human exposure.

    Claimed Finding:
    Vegetated coastal ecosystems reduce the production of methylmercury in coastal zones.

    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:
    Blue C ecosystems can provide a range of ecosystem services such as protecting biodiversity and fisheries and increasing water quality. However, the co-accumulation and contrary ecological effects of OC and Hg in coastal ecosystems indicate that expanding Blue C ecosystems are very likely to add to the Blue Hg stock, consequently resulting in an increase of Hg risk in global coastal seas.

    Claimed Finding:
    Expansion of Blue Carbon ecosystems is likely to increase mercury-related health risks.

    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 highlight that the Blue Hg dilemma should be accounted for in future Blue C strategy assessments to inform policymakers and help them design better management and restoration policies across sectors and actors that can balance economic, ecological, climatic and health interests for future generations.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors call for a complete ban on Blue Carbon ecosystem restoration to avoid mercury risks.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT