[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Articles published in open access format are less likely to be cited than traditional journals.

Document title: Open Access Increases Citation Rate

Abstract sentences:
[0] PLoS Biology publishes today a research article by Gunther Eysenbach that is not about biology.
[1] It is about citations.
[2] It provides robust evidence that open-access articles (OA articles) are more immediately recognized and cited than non-OA articles.
[3] As such, it adds objective support to the belief we have always held that open-access publication speeds up scientific dialog between researchers and, consequently, should be extended to the whole scientific literature as quickly as possible.
[4] It is therefore fitting that we publish such a paper.
[5] We have long argued that papers freely available in a journal will be more often read and cited than those behind a subscription barrier.
[6] However, solid evidence to support or refute such a claim has been surprisingly hard to find.
[7] Since most open-access journals are new, comparisons of the effects of open access with established subscription-based journals are easily confounded by age and reputation.
[8] In the current study, Eysenbach compared citations compiled by Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI) to individual articles published between June 2004 and December 2004 in the same journal—namely, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), which announced its open-access option for authors on June 8 of that year, with an associated publication charge of US$1,000.
[9] Non-OA articles in PNAS are subject to a six-month “toll-access” delay before the article becomes publicly available.
[10] The results of this natural experiment are clear: in the 4 to 16 months following publication, OA articles gained a significant citation advantage over non-OA articles during the same period.
[11] They are twice as likely to be cited 4 to 10 months after publication and almost three times as likely between 10 and 16 months.
[12] Given that PNAS delays open access for only six months, the disparity between OA and non-OA articles in journals where the delay is longer or where articles remain “toll-access” is likely to be even greater.
[13] Eysenbach also looked at the impact of self-archiving non-OA articles.
[14] One route to open access, it is argued, is for authors to archive their published articles on their own Web sites or in institutional repositories, although this does not include an explicit business model to cover the cost of peer-review and publishing.
[15] The analysis revealed that self-archived articles are also cited less often than OA articles from the same journal.
[16] Yes, you're right; we do have a strong and vested interest in publishing results that so obviously endorse our existence.
[17] Moreover, the author of the article is also an editor of an open-access journal.
[18] But sometimes a potential conflict of interest can actually help to ensure rigor.
[19] In this case, we have an acute interest in ensuring that the article meets the same, if not higher, standards as any other research article we publish.
[20] Not only must the conclusions provide a significant advance for the field, but the study must be technically sound, with appropriate evidence to support those conclusions.
[21] As with all our research articles, we consulted throughout the evaluation process with an academic editor with appropriate expertise—in this case, Carol Tenopir, professor of information sciences at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, Tennessee, United States).
[22] The article was reviewed by two experts in bibliometric analyses and information science, and an experienced research biologist with expertise in statistics.
[23] They all enthusiastically supported publication, although one understandably questioned the suitability of PLoS Biology as the publication venue.
[24] We have no intention of making PLoS Biology a regular home for bibliometric studies (even when about open access).
[25] What makes this study worth publishing in PLoS Biology is not only the relative strength of evidence supporting the claim but also the extent to which many (especially other publishers) have anticipated such an analysis.
[26] As far as we are aware, no other study has compared OA and non-OA articles from the same journal and controlled for so many potentially confounding factors.
[27] Eysenbach's multivariate analysis took into account the number of days since publication, number of authors, article type, country of the corresponding author, funding type, subject area, submission track ( PNAS has three different ways that authors can submit a paper), and the previous citation record of the first and last authors.
[28] He even administered a supplementary questionnaire to assess whether authors choosing the OA option in PNAS chose to do so for only their most important research (they didn't).
[29] As Ian Rowlands from the Centre for Publishing at University College London—and one of the reviewers who agreed to be identified in this article—said at the start of his review:          “Many (most) of the papers and presentations I have read/seen on this topic have completely failed to address the kinds of confounding issues that are so convincingly tackled here.
[30] For that reason alone, this paper deserves to be published and alerted to the widest possible audience.
[31] ”          In addition to providing evidence for the immediate advantage of open access, Eysenbach's analysis also highlights several potential challenges to its long-term future.
[32] Although a limited dataset, the citation history of the first and last authors differed between those who chose the open-access option and those who did not.
[33] In the group that chose open access, last authors tended to have a “stronger” previous citation record, whereas this situation was reversed among the group that declined the open-access option—here, it was the first authors who tended to be stronger.
[34] This may reflect varying attitudes of authors at different stages of their career, a stronger influence from the leader of a particular group, or an age- or career-related difference in the ability to pay the publication charge (e.g., [ 1]).
[35] Indeed, access to appropriate funds may also be a reason why a lower proportion of authors from European countries tended to choose the open-access option.
[36] In many of these countries, funds for page charges—and, by extension, open-access publication fees—are often not included within research grants.
[37] PNAS was one of the first journals to offer an open-access option to its authors.
[38] However, such hybrid journals are increasing: Blackwell, Springer, and Oxford University Press now provide this option as well.
[39] This means that similar experiments can be replicated.
[40] Moreover, although the evidence from the current analysis argues most strongly for a time advantage in citation for OA articles, a study over longer periods will reveal whether this translates into a sustained increase in the number of citations.
[41] In the meantime, open-access advocates should be emboldened by tangible evidence for what has seemed obvious all along.

[Assistant]
Label: CONTRADICTS
Rationale sentence ids: [11]
Explanation: Evidence states: "They are twice as likely to be cited 4 to 10 months after publication and almost three times as likely between 10 and 16 months.". This contradicts the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Articles published in open access format are less likely to be cited than traditional journals.

Document title: Open Access Increases Citation Rate

Abstract sentences:
[0] PLoS Biology publishes today a research article by Gunther Eysenbach that is not about biology.
[1] It is about citations.
[2] It provides robust evidence that open-access articles (OA articles) are more immediately recognized and cited than non-OA articles.
[3] As such, it adds objective support to the belief we have always held that open-access publication speeds up scientific dialog between researchers and, consequently, should be extended to the whole scientific literature as quickly as possible.
[4] It is therefore fitting that we publish such a paper.
[5] We have long argued that papers freely available in a journal will be more often read and cited than those behind a subscription barrier.
[6] However, solid evidence to support or refute such a claim has been surprisingly hard to find.
[7] Since most open-access journals are new, comparisons of the effects of open access with established subscription-based journals are easily confounded by age and reputation.
[8] In the current study, Eysenbach compared citations compiled by Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI) to individual articles published between June 2004 and December 2004 in the same journal—namely, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), which announced its open-access option for authors on June 8 of that year, with an associated publication charge of US$1,000.
[9] Non-OA articles in PNAS are subject to a six-month “toll-access” delay before the article becomes publicly available.
[10] The results of this natural experiment are clear: in the 4 to 16 months following publication, OA articles gained a significant citation advantage over non-OA articles during the same period.
[11] They are twice as likely to be cited 4 to 10 months after publication and almost three times as likely between 10 and 16 months.
[12] Given that PNAS delays open access for only six months, the disparity between OA and non-OA articles in journals where the delay is longer or where articles remain “toll-access” is likely to be even greater.
[13] Eysenbach also looked at the impact of self-archiving non-OA articles.
[14] One route to open access, it is argued, is for authors to archive their published articles on their own Web sites or in institutional repositories, although this does not include an explicit business model to cover the cost of peer-review and publishing.
[15] The analysis revealed that self-archived articles are also cited less often than OA articles from the same journal.
[16] Yes, you're right; we do have a strong and vested interest in publishing results that so obviously endorse our existence.
[17] Moreover, the author of the article is also an editor of an open-access journal.
[18] But sometimes a potential conflict of interest can actually help to ensure rigor.
[19] In this case, we have an acute interest in ensuring that the article meets the same, if not higher, standards as any other research article we publish.
[20] Not only must the conclusions provide a significant advance for the field, but the study must be technically sound, with appropriate evidence to support those conclusions.
[21] As with all our research articles, we consulted throughout the evaluation process with an academic editor with appropriate expertise—in this case, Carol Tenopir, professor of information sciences at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, Tennessee, United States).
[22] The article was reviewed by two experts in bibliometric analyses and information science, and an experienced research biologist with expertise in statistics.
[23] They all enthusiastically supported publication, although one understandably questioned the suitability of PLoS Biology as the publication venue.
[24] We have no intention of making PLoS Biology a regular home for bibliometric studies (even when about open access).
[25] What makes this study worth publishing in PLoS Biology is not only the relative strength of evidence supporting the claim but also the extent to which many (especially other publishers) have anticipated such an analysis.
[26] As far as we are aware, no other study has compared OA and non-OA articles from the same journal and controlled for so many potentially confounding factors.
[27] Eysenbach's multivariate analysis took into account the number of days since publication, number of authors, article type, country of the corresponding author, funding type, subject area, submission track ( PNAS has three different ways that authors can submit a paper), and the previous citation record of the first and last authors.
[28] He even administered a supplementary questionnaire to assess whether authors choosing the OA option in PNAS chose to do so for only their most important research (they didn't).
[29] As Ian Rowlands from the Centre for Publishing at University College London—and one of the reviewers who agreed to be identified in this article—said at the start of his review:          “Many (most) of the papers and presentations I have read/seen on this topic have completely failed to address the kinds of confounding issues that are so convincingly tackled here.
[30] For that reason alone, this paper deserves to be published and alerted to the widest possible audience.
[31] ”          In addition to providing evidence for the immediate advantage of open access, Eysenbach's analysis also highlights several potential challenges to its long-term future.
[32] Although a limited dataset, the citation history of the first and last authors differed between those who chose the open-access option and those who did not.
[33] In the group that chose open access, last authors tended to have a “stronger” previous citation record, whereas this situation was reversed among the group that declined the open-access option—here, it was the first authors who tended to be stronger.
[34] This may reflect varying attitudes of authors at different stages of their career, a stronger influence from the leader of a particular group, or an age- or career-related difference in the ability to pay the publication charge (e.g., [ 1]).
[35] Indeed, access to appropriate funds may also be a reason why a lower proportion of authors from European countries tended to choose the open-access option.
[36] In many of these countries, funds for page charges—and, by extension, open-access publication fees—are often not included within research grants.
[37] PNAS was one of the first journals to offer an open-access option to its authors.
[38] However, such hybrid journals are increasing: Blackwell, Springer, and Oxford University Press now provide this option as well.
[39] This means that similar experiments can be replicated.
[40] Moreover, although the evidence from the current analysis argues most strongly for a time advantage in citation for OA articles, a study over longer periods will reveal whether this translates into a sustained increase in the number of citations.
[41] In the meantime, open-access advocates should be emboldened by tangible evidence for what has seemed obvious all along.

[Assistant]
Label: CONTRADICTS
Rationale sentence ids: [40]
Explanation: Evidence states: "Moreover, although the evidence from the current analysis argues most strongly for a time advantage in citation for OA articles, a study over longer periods will reveal whether this translates into a sustained increase in the number of citations.". This contradicts the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Articles published in open access format are more likely to be cited than traditional journals.

Document title: Open Access Increases Citation Rate

Abstract sentences:
[0] PLoS Biology publishes today a research article by Gunther Eysenbach that is not about biology.
[1] It is about citations.
[2] It provides robust evidence that open-access articles (OA articles) are more immediately recognized and cited than non-OA articles.
[3] As such, it adds objective support to the belief we have always held that open-access publication speeds up scientific dialog between researchers and, consequently, should be extended to the whole scientific literature as quickly as possible.
[4] It is therefore fitting that we publish such a paper.
[5] We have long argued that papers freely available in a journal will be more often read and cited than those behind a subscription barrier.
[6] However, solid evidence to support or refute such a claim has been surprisingly hard to find.
[7] Since most open-access journals are new, comparisons of the effects of open access with established subscription-based journals are easily confounded by age and reputation.
[8] In the current study, Eysenbach compared citations compiled by Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI) to individual articles published between June 2004 and December 2004 in the same journal—namely, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), which announced its open-access option for authors on June 8 of that year, with an associated publication charge of US$1,000.
[9] Non-OA articles in PNAS are subject to a six-month “toll-access” delay before the article becomes publicly available.
[10] The results of this natural experiment are clear: in the 4 to 16 months following publication, OA articles gained a significant citation advantage over non-OA articles during the same period.
[11] They are twice as likely to be cited 4 to 10 months after publication and almost three times as likely between 10 and 16 months.
[12] Given that PNAS delays open access for only six months, the disparity between OA and non-OA articles in journals where the delay is longer or where articles remain “toll-access” is likely to be even greater.
[13] Eysenbach also looked at the impact of self-archiving non-OA articles.
[14] One route to open access, it is argued, is for authors to archive their published articles on their own Web sites or in institutional repositories, although this does not include an explicit business model to cover the cost of peer-review and publishing.
[15] The analysis revealed that self-archived articles are also cited less often than OA articles from the same journal.
[16] Yes, you're right; we do have a strong and vested interest in publishing results that so obviously endorse our existence.
[17] Moreover, the author of the article is also an editor of an open-access journal.
[18] But sometimes a potential conflict of interest can actually help to ensure rigor.
[19] In this case, we have an acute interest in ensuring that the article meets the same, if not higher, standards as any other research article we publish.
[20] Not only must the conclusions provide a significant advance for the field, but the study must be technically sound, with appropriate evidence to support those conclusions.
[21] As with all our research articles, we consulted throughout the evaluation process with an academic editor with appropriate expertise—in this case, Carol Tenopir, professor of information sciences at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, Tennessee, United States).
[22] The article was reviewed by two experts in bibliometric analyses and information science, and an experienced research biologist with expertise in statistics.
[23] They all enthusiastically supported publication, although one understandably questioned the suitability of PLoS Biology as the publication venue.
[24] We have no intention of making PLoS Biology a regular home for bibliometric studies (even when about open access).
[25] What makes this study worth publishing in PLoS Biology is not only the relative strength of evidence supporting the claim but also the extent to which many (especially other publishers) have anticipated such an analysis.
[26] As far as we are aware, no other study has compared OA and non-OA articles from the same journal and controlled for so many potentially confounding factors.
[27] Eysenbach's multivariate analysis took into account the number of days since publication, number of authors, article type, country of the corresponding author, funding type, subject area, submission track ( PNAS has three different ways that authors can submit a paper), and the previous citation record of the first and last authors.
[28] He even administered a supplementary questionnaire to assess whether authors choosing the OA option in PNAS chose to do so for only their most important research (they didn't).
[29] As Ian Rowlands from the Centre for Publishing at University College London—and one of the reviewers who agreed to be identified in this article—said at the start of his review:          “Many (most) of the papers and presentations I have read/seen on this topic have completely failed to address the kinds of confounding issues that are so convincingly tackled here.
[30] For that reason alone, this paper deserves to be published and alerted to the widest possible audience.
[31] ”          In addition to providing evidence for the immediate advantage of open access, Eysenbach's analysis also highlights several potential challenges to its long-term future.
[32] Although a limited dataset, the citation history of the first and last authors differed between those who chose the open-access option and those who did not.
[33] In the group that chose open access, last authors tended to have a “stronger” previous citation record, whereas this situation was reversed among the group that declined the open-access option—here, it was the first authors who tended to be stronger.
[34] This may reflect varying attitudes of authors at different stages of their career, a stronger influence from the leader of a particular group, or an age- or career-related difference in the ability to pay the publication charge (e.g., [ 1]).
[35] Indeed, access to appropriate funds may also be a reason why a lower proportion of authors from European countries tended to choose the open-access option.
[36] In many of these countries, funds for page charges—and, by extension, open-access publication fees—are often not included within research grants.
[37] PNAS was one of the first journals to offer an open-access option to its authors.
[38] However, such hybrid journals are increasing: Blackwell, Springer, and Oxford University Press now provide this option as well.
[39] This means that similar experiments can be replicated.
[40] Moreover, although the evidence from the current analysis argues most strongly for a time advantage in citation for OA articles, a study over longer periods will reveal whether this translates into a sustained increase in the number of citations.
[41] In the meantime, open-access advocates should be emboldened by tangible evidence for what has seemed obvious all along.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [2]
Explanation: Evidence states: "It provides robust evidence that open-access articles (OA articles) are more immediately recognized and cited than non-OA articles.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Articles published in open access format are more likely to be cited than traditional journals.

Document title: Open Access Increases Citation Rate

Abstract sentences:
[0] PLoS Biology publishes today a research article by Gunther Eysenbach that is not about biology.
[1] It is about citations.
[2] It provides robust evidence that open-access articles (OA articles) are more immediately recognized and cited than non-OA articles.
[3] As such, it adds objective support to the belief we have always held that open-access publication speeds up scientific dialog between researchers and, consequently, should be extended to the whole scientific literature as quickly as possible.
[4] It is therefore fitting that we publish such a paper.
[5] We have long argued that papers freely available in a journal will be more often read and cited than those behind a subscription barrier.
[6] However, solid evidence to support or refute such a claim has been surprisingly hard to find.
[7] Since most open-access journals are new, comparisons of the effects of open access with established subscription-based journals are easily confounded by age and reputation.
[8] In the current study, Eysenbach compared citations compiled by Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI) to individual articles published between June 2004 and December 2004 in the same journal—namely, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), which announced its open-access option for authors on June 8 of that year, with an associated publication charge of US$1,000.
[9] Non-OA articles in PNAS are subject to a six-month “toll-access” delay before the article becomes publicly available.
[10] The results of this natural experiment are clear: in the 4 to 16 months following publication, OA articles gained a significant citation advantage over non-OA articles during the same period.
[11] They are twice as likely to be cited 4 to 10 months after publication and almost three times as likely between 10 and 16 months.
[12] Given that PNAS delays open access for only six months, the disparity between OA and non-OA articles in journals where the delay is longer or where articles remain “toll-access” is likely to be even greater.
[13] Eysenbach also looked at the impact of self-archiving non-OA articles.
[14] One route to open access, it is argued, is for authors to archive their published articles on their own Web sites or in institutional repositories, although this does not include an explicit business model to cover the cost of peer-review and publishing.
[15] The analysis revealed that self-archived articles are also cited less often than OA articles from the same journal.
[16] Yes, you're right; we do have a strong and vested interest in publishing results that so obviously endorse our existence.
[17] Moreover, the author of the article is also an editor of an open-access journal.
[18] But sometimes a potential conflict of interest can actually help to ensure rigor.
[19] In this case, we have an acute interest in ensuring that the article meets the same, if not higher, standards as any other research article we publish.
[20] Not only must the conclusions provide a significant advance for the field, but the study must be technically sound, with appropriate evidence to support those conclusions.
[21] As with all our research articles, we consulted throughout the evaluation process with an academic editor with appropriate expertise—in this case, Carol Tenopir, professor of information sciences at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, Tennessee, United States).
[22] The article was reviewed by two experts in bibliometric analyses and information science, and an experienced research biologist with expertise in statistics.
[23] They all enthusiastically supported publication, although one understandably questioned the suitability of PLoS Biology as the publication venue.
[24] We have no intention of making PLoS Biology a regular home for bibliometric studies (even when about open access).
[25] What makes this study worth publishing in PLoS Biology is not only the relative strength of evidence supporting the claim but also the extent to which many (especially other publishers) have anticipated such an analysis.
[26] As far as we are aware, no other study has compared OA and non-OA articles from the same journal and controlled for so many potentially confounding factors.
[27] Eysenbach's multivariate analysis took into account the number of days since publication, number of authors, article type, country of the corresponding author, funding type, subject area, submission track ( PNAS has three different ways that authors can submit a paper), and the previous citation record of the first and last authors.
[28] He even administered a supplementary questionnaire to assess whether authors choosing the OA option in PNAS chose to do so for only their most important research (they didn't).
[29] As Ian Rowlands from the Centre for Publishing at University College London—and one of the reviewers who agreed to be identified in this article—said at the start of his review:          “Many (most) of the papers and presentations I have read/seen on this topic have completely failed to address the kinds of confounding issues that are so convincingly tackled here.
[30] For that reason alone, this paper deserves to be published and alerted to the widest possible audience.
[31] ”          In addition to providing evidence for the immediate advantage of open access, Eysenbach's analysis also highlights several potential challenges to its long-term future.
[32] Although a limited dataset, the citation history of the first and last authors differed between those who chose the open-access option and those who did not.
[33] In the group that chose open access, last authors tended to have a “stronger” previous citation record, whereas this situation was reversed among the group that declined the open-access option—here, it was the first authors who tended to be stronger.
[34] This may reflect varying attitudes of authors at different stages of their career, a stronger influence from the leader of a particular group, or an age- or career-related difference in the ability to pay the publication charge (e.g., [ 1]).
[35] Indeed, access to appropriate funds may also be a reason why a lower proportion of authors from European countries tended to choose the open-access option.
[36] In many of these countries, funds for page charges—and, by extension, open-access publication fees—are often not included within research grants.
[37] PNAS was one of the first journals to offer an open-access option to its authors.
[38] However, such hybrid journals are increasing: Blackwell, Springer, and Oxford University Press now provide this option as well.
[39] This means that similar experiments can be replicated.
[40] Moreover, although the evidence from the current analysis argues most strongly for a time advantage in citation for OA articles, a study over longer periods will reveal whether this translates into a sustained increase in the number of citations.
[41] In the meantime, open-access advocates should be emboldened by tangible evidence for what has seemed obvious all along.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [10]
Explanation: Evidence states: "The results of this natural experiment are clear: in the 4 to 16 months following publication, OA articles gained a significant citation advantage over non-OA articles during the same period.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Articles published in open access format are more likely to be cited than traditional journals.

Document title: Open Access Increases Citation Rate

Abstract sentences:
[0] PLoS Biology publishes today a research article by Gunther Eysenbach that is not about biology.
[1] It is about citations.
[2] It provides robust evidence that open-access articles (OA articles) are more immediately recognized and cited than non-OA articles.
[3] As such, it adds objective support to the belief we have always held that open-access publication speeds up scientific dialog between researchers and, consequently, should be extended to the whole scientific literature as quickly as possible.
[4] It is therefore fitting that we publish such a paper.
[5] We have long argued that papers freely available in a journal will be more often read and cited than those behind a subscription barrier.
[6] However, solid evidence to support or refute such a claim has been surprisingly hard to find.
[7] Since most open-access journals are new, comparisons of the effects of open access with established subscription-based journals are easily confounded by age and reputation.
[8] In the current study, Eysenbach compared citations compiled by Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI) to individual articles published between June 2004 and December 2004 in the same journal—namely, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), which announced its open-access option for authors on June 8 of that year, with an associated publication charge of US$1,000.
[9] Non-OA articles in PNAS are subject to a six-month “toll-access” delay before the article becomes publicly available.
[10] The results of this natural experiment are clear: in the 4 to 16 months following publication, OA articles gained a significant citation advantage over non-OA articles during the same period.
[11] They are twice as likely to be cited 4 to 10 months after publication and almost three times as likely between 10 and 16 months.
[12] Given that PNAS delays open access for only six months, the disparity between OA and non-OA articles in journals where the delay is longer or where articles remain “toll-access” is likely to be even greater.
[13] Eysenbach also looked at the impact of self-archiving non-OA articles.
[14] One route to open access, it is argued, is for authors to archive their published articles on their own Web sites or in institutional repositories, although this does not include an explicit business model to cover the cost of peer-review and publishing.
[15] The analysis revealed that self-archived articles are also cited less often than OA articles from the same journal.
[16] Yes, you're right; we do have a strong and vested interest in publishing results that so obviously endorse our existence.
[17] Moreover, the author of the article is also an editor of an open-access journal.
[18] But sometimes a potential conflict of interest can actually help to ensure rigor.
[19] In this case, we have an acute interest in ensuring that the article meets the same, if not higher, standards as any other research article we publish.
[20] Not only must the conclusions provide a significant advance for the field, but the study must be technically sound, with appropriate evidence to support those conclusions.
[21] As with all our research articles, we consulted throughout the evaluation process with an academic editor with appropriate expertise—in this case, Carol Tenopir, professor of information sciences at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, Tennessee, United States).
[22] The article was reviewed by two experts in bibliometric analyses and information science, and an experienced research biologist with expertise in statistics.
[23] They all enthusiastically supported publication, although one understandably questioned the suitability of PLoS Biology as the publication venue.
[24] We have no intention of making PLoS Biology a regular home for bibliometric studies (even when about open access).
[25] What makes this study worth publishing in PLoS Biology is not only the relative strength of evidence supporting the claim but also the extent to which many (especially other publishers) have anticipated such an analysis.
[26] As far as we are aware, no other study has compared OA and non-OA articles from the same journal and controlled for so many potentially confounding factors.
[27] Eysenbach's multivariate analysis took into account the number of days since publication, number of authors, article type, country of the corresponding author, funding type, subject area, submission track ( PNAS has three different ways that authors can submit a paper), and the previous citation record of the first and last authors.
[28] He even administered a supplementary questionnaire to assess whether authors choosing the OA option in PNAS chose to do so for only their most important research (they didn't).
[29] As Ian Rowlands from the Centre for Publishing at University College London—and one of the reviewers who agreed to be identified in this article—said at the start of his review:          “Many (most) of the papers and presentations I have read/seen on this topic have completely failed to address the kinds of confounding issues that are so convincingly tackled here.
[30] For that reason alone, this paper deserves to be published and alerted to the widest possible audience.
[31] ”          In addition to providing evidence for the immediate advantage of open access, Eysenbach's analysis also highlights several potential challenges to its long-term future.
[32] Although a limited dataset, the citation history of the first and last authors differed between those who chose the open-access option and those who did not.
[33] In the group that chose open access, last authors tended to have a “stronger” previous citation record, whereas this situation was reversed among the group that declined the open-access option—here, it was the first authors who tended to be stronger.
[34] This may reflect varying attitudes of authors at different stages of their career, a stronger influence from the leader of a particular group, or an age- or career-related difference in the ability to pay the publication charge (e.g., [ 1]).
[35] Indeed, access to appropriate funds may also be a reason why a lower proportion of authors from European countries tended to choose the open-access option.
[36] In many of these countries, funds for page charges—and, by extension, open-access publication fees—are often not included within research grants.
[37] PNAS was one of the first journals to offer an open-access option to its authors.
[38] However, such hybrid journals are increasing: Blackwell, Springer, and Oxford University Press now provide this option as well.
[39] This means that similar experiments can be replicated.
[40] Moreover, although the evidence from the current analysis argues most strongly for a time advantage in citation for OA articles, a study over longer periods will reveal whether this translates into a sustained increase in the number of citations.
[41] In the meantime, open-access advocates should be emboldened by tangible evidence for what has seemed obvious all along.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [11]
Explanation: Evidence states: "They are twice as likely to be cited 4 to 10 months after publication and almost three times as likely between 10 and 16 months.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Articles published in open access format are more likely to be cited than traditional journals.

Document title: Open Access Increases Citation Rate

Abstract sentences:
[0] PLoS Biology publishes today a research article by Gunther Eysenbach that is not about biology.
[1] It is about citations.
[2] It provides robust evidence that open-access articles (OA articles) are more immediately recognized and cited than non-OA articles.
[3] As such, it adds objective support to the belief we have always held that open-access publication speeds up scientific dialog between researchers and, consequently, should be extended to the whole scientific literature as quickly as possible.
[4] It is therefore fitting that we publish such a paper.
[5] We have long argued that papers freely available in a journal will be more often read and cited than those behind a subscription barrier.
[6] However, solid evidence to support or refute such a claim has been surprisingly hard to find.
[7] Since most open-access journals are new, comparisons of the effects of open access with established subscription-based journals are easily confounded by age and reputation.
[8] In the current study, Eysenbach compared citations compiled by Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI) to individual articles published between June 2004 and December 2004 in the same journal—namely, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), which announced its open-access option for authors on June 8 of that year, with an associated publication charge of US$1,000.
[9] Non-OA articles in PNAS are subject to a six-month “toll-access” delay before the article becomes publicly available.
[10] The results of this natural experiment are clear: in the 4 to 16 months following publication, OA articles gained a significant citation advantage over non-OA articles during the same period.
[11] They are twice as likely to be cited 4 to 10 months after publication and almost three times as likely between 10 and 16 months.
[12] Given that PNAS delays open access for only six months, the disparity between OA and non-OA articles in journals where the delay is longer or where articles remain “toll-access” is likely to be even greater.
[13] Eysenbach also looked at the impact of self-archiving non-OA articles.
[14] One route to open access, it is argued, is for authors to archive their published articles on their own Web sites or in institutional repositories, although this does not include an explicit business model to cover the cost of peer-review and publishing.
[15] The analysis revealed that self-archived articles are also cited less often than OA articles from the same journal.
[16] Yes, you're right; we do have a strong and vested interest in publishing results that so obviously endorse our existence.
[17] Moreover, the author of the article is also an editor of an open-access journal.
[18] But sometimes a potential conflict of interest can actually help to ensure rigor.
[19] In this case, we have an acute interest in ensuring that the article meets the same, if not higher, standards as any other research article we publish.
[20] Not only must the conclusions provide a significant advance for the field, but the study must be technically sound, with appropriate evidence to support those conclusions.
[21] As with all our research articles, we consulted throughout the evaluation process with an academic editor with appropriate expertise—in this case, Carol Tenopir, professor of information sciences at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, Tennessee, United States).
[22] The article was reviewed by two experts in bibliometric analyses and information science, and an experienced research biologist with expertise in statistics.
[23] They all enthusiastically supported publication, although one understandably questioned the suitability of PLoS Biology as the publication venue.
[24] We have no intention of making PLoS Biology a regular home for bibliometric studies (even when about open access).
[25] What makes this study worth publishing in PLoS Biology is not only the relative strength of evidence supporting the claim but also the extent to which many (especially other publishers) have anticipated such an analysis.
[26] As far as we are aware, no other study has compared OA and non-OA articles from the same journal and controlled for so many potentially confounding factors.
[27] Eysenbach's multivariate analysis took into account the number of days since publication, number of authors, article type, country of the corresponding author, funding type, subject area, submission track ( PNAS has three different ways that authors can submit a paper), and the previous citation record of the first and last authors.
[28] He even administered a supplementary questionnaire to assess whether authors choosing the OA option in PNAS chose to do so for only their most important research (they didn't).
[29] As Ian Rowlands from the Centre for Publishing at University College London—and one of the reviewers who agreed to be identified in this article—said at the start of his review:          “Many (most) of the papers and presentations I have read/seen on this topic have completely failed to address the kinds of confounding issues that are so convincingly tackled here.
[30] For that reason alone, this paper deserves to be published and alerted to the widest possible audience.
[31] ”          In addition to providing evidence for the immediate advantage of open access, Eysenbach's analysis also highlights several potential challenges to its long-term future.
[32] Although a limited dataset, the citation history of the first and last authors differed between those who chose the open-access option and those who did not.
[33] In the group that chose open access, last authors tended to have a “stronger” previous citation record, whereas this situation was reversed among the group that declined the open-access option—here, it was the first authors who tended to be stronger.
[34] This may reflect varying attitudes of authors at different stages of their career, a stronger influence from the leader of a particular group, or an age- or career-related difference in the ability to pay the publication charge (e.g., [ 1]).
[35] Indeed, access to appropriate funds may also be a reason why a lower proportion of authors from European countries tended to choose the open-access option.
[36] In many of these countries, funds for page charges—and, by extension, open-access publication fees—are often not included within research grants.
[37] PNAS was one of the first journals to offer an open-access option to its authors.
[38] However, such hybrid journals are increasing: Blackwell, Springer, and Oxford University Press now provide this option as well.
[39] This means that similar experiments can be replicated.
[40] Moreover, although the evidence from the current analysis argues most strongly for a time advantage in citation for OA articles, a study over longer periods will reveal whether this translates into a sustained increase in the number of citations.
[41] In the meantime, open-access advocates should be emboldened by tangible evidence for what has seemed obvious all along.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [40]
Explanation: Evidence states: "Moreover, although the evidence from the current analysis argues most strongly for a time advantage in citation for OA articles, a study over longer periods will reveal whether this translates into a sustained increase in the number of citations.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Aspirin inhibits the production of PGE2.

Document title: Cyclooxygenase-Dependent Tumor Growth through Evasion of Immunity

Abstract sentences:
[0] The mechanisms by which melanoma and other cancer cells evade anti-tumor immunity remain incompletely understood.
[1] Here, we show that the growth of tumors formed by mutant Braf(V600E) mouse melanoma cells in an immunocompetent host requires their production of prostaglandin E2, which suppresses immunity and fuels tumor-promoting inflammation.
[2] Genetic ablation of cyclooxygenases (COX) or prostaglandin E synthases in Braf(V600E) mouse melanoma cells, as well as in Nras(G12D) melanoma or in breast or colorectal cancer cells, renders them susceptible to immune control and provokes a shift in the tumor inflammatory profile toward classic anti-cancer immune pathways.
[3] This mouse COX-dependent inflammatory signature is remarkably conserved in human cutaneous melanoma biopsies, arguing for COX activity as a driver of immune suppression across species.
[4] Pre-clinical data demonstrate that inhibition of COX synergizes with anti-PD-1 blockade in inducing eradication of tumors, implying that COX inhibitors could be useful adjuvants for immune-based therapies in cancer patients.

[Assistant]
Label: NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION
Rationale sentence ids: []
Explanation: The provided abstract does not contain direct evidence to support or contradict the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Assembly of invadopodia is triggered by focal generation of phosphatidylinositol-3,4-biphosphate and the activation of the nonreceptor tyrosine kinase Src.

Document title: Sequential signals toward podosome formation in NIH-src cells

Abstract sentences:
[0] Podosomes (also termed invadopodia in cancer cells) are actin-rich adhesion structures with matrix degradation activity that develop in various cell types.
[1] Despite their significant physiological importance, the molecular mechanism of podosome formation is largely unknown.
[2] In this study, we investigated the molecular mechanisms of podosome formation.
[3] The expression of various phosphoinositide-binding domains revealed that the podosomes in Src-transformed NIH3T3 (NIH-src) cells are enriched with PtdIns(3,4)P2, suggesting an important role of this phosphoinositide in podosome formation.
[4] Live-cell imaging analysis revealed that Src-expression stimulated podosome formation at focal adhesions of NIH3T3 cells after PtdIns(3,4)P2 accumulation.
[5] The adaptor protein Tks5/FISH, which is essential for podosome formation, was found to form a complex with Grb2 at adhesion sites in an Src-dependent manner.
[6] Further, it was found that N-WASP bound all SH3 domains of Tks5/FISH, which facilitated circular podosome formation.
[7] These results indicate that augmentation of the N-WASP-Arp2/3 signal was accomplished on the platform of Tks5/FISH-Grb2 complex at focal adhesions, which is stabilized by PtdIns(3,4)P2.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [3, 4]
Explanation: Evidence states: "The expression of various phosphoinositide-binding domains revealed that the podosomes in Src-transformed NIH3T3 (NIH-src) cells are enriched with PtdIns(3,4)P2, suggesting an important role of this phosphoinositide in podosome formation. Live-cell imaging analysis revealed that Src-expression stimulated podosome formation at focal adhesions of NIH3T3 cells after PtdIns(3,4)P2 accumulation.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Asymptomatic visual impairment screening in elderly populations does not lead to improved vision.

Document title: Effectiveness of screening older people for impaired vision in community setting: systematic review of evidence from randomised controlled trials.

Abstract sentences:
[0] OBJECTIVE To assess whether population screening for impaired vision among older people in the community leads to improvements in vision.
[1] DESIGN Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of population screening in the community that included any assessment of vision or visual function with at least 6 months' follow up.
[2] SUBJECTS Adults aged 65 or over.
[3] MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Proportions with visual impairment in intervention and control groups with any method of assessing visual impairment.
[4] RESULTS There were no trials that primarily assessed visual screening.
[5] Outcome data on vision were available for 3494 people in five trials of multiphasic assessment.
[6] All the trials used self reported measures for vision impairment, both as screening tools and as outcome measures.
[7] The inclusion of a visual screening component in the assessment did not result in improvements in self reported visual problems (pooled odds ratio 1.04:95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.22).
[8] A small reduction (11%) in the number of older people with self reported visual problems cannot be excluded.
[9] CONCLUSIONS Screening of asymptomatic older people in the community is not justified on present evidence.
[10] Visual impairment in this age group can usually be reduced with treatment.
[11] It is unclear why no benefit was seen.
[12] Further work is needed to clarify what interventions are appropriate for older people with unreported impairment of vision.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [7, 9]
Explanation: Evidence states: "The inclusion of a visual screening component in the assessment did not result in improvements in self reported visual problems (pooled odds ratio 1.04:95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.22). CONCLUSIONS Screening of asymptomatic older people in the community is not justified on present evidence.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Auditory entrainment is strengthened when people see congruent visual and auditory information.

Document title: Congruent Visual Speech Enhances Cortical Entrainment to Continuous Auditory Speech in Noise-Free Conditions.

Abstract sentences:
[0] UNLABELLED Congruent audiovisual speech enhances our ability to comprehend a speaker, even in noise-free conditions.
[1] When incongruent auditory and visual information is presented concurrently, it can hinder a listener's perception and even cause him or her to perceive information that was not presented in either modality.
[2] Efforts to investigate the neural basis of these effects have often focused on the special case of discrete audiovisual syllables that are spatially and temporally congruent, with less work done on the case of natural, continuous speech.
[3] Recent electrophysiological studies have demonstrated that cortical response measures to continuous auditory speech can be easily obtained using multivariate analysis methods.
[4] Here, we apply such methods to the case of audiovisual speech and, importantly, present a novel framework for indexing multisensory integration in the context of continuous speech.
[5] Specifically, we examine how the temporal and contextual congruency of ongoing audiovisual speech affects the cortical encoding of the speech envelope in humans using electroencephalography.
[6] We demonstrate that the cortical representation of the speech envelope is enhanced by the presentation of congruent audiovisual speech in noise-free conditions.
[7] Furthermore, we show that this is likely attributable to the contribution of neural generators that are not particularly active during unimodal stimulation and that it is most prominent at the temporal scale corresponding to syllabic rate (2-6 Hz).
[8] Finally, our data suggest that neural entrainment to the speech envelope is inhibited when the auditory and visual streams are incongruent both temporally and contextually.
[9] SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Seeing a speaker's face as he or she talks can greatly help in understanding what the speaker is saying.
[10] This is because the speaker's facial movements relay information about what the speaker is saying, but also, importantly, when the speaker is saying it.
[11] Studying how the brain uses this timing relationship to combine information from continuous auditory and visual speech has traditionally been methodologically difficult.
[12] Here we introduce a new approach for doing this using relatively inexpensive and noninvasive scalp recordings.
[13] Specifically, we show that the brain's representation of auditory speech is enhanced when the accompanying visual speech signal shares the same timing.
[14] Furthermore, we show that this enhancement is most pronounced at a time scale that corresponds to mean syllable length.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [0]
Explanation: Evidence states: "UNLABELLED Congruent audiovisual speech enhances our ability to comprehend a speaker, even in noise-free conditions.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Auditory entrainment is strengthened when people see congruent visual and auditory information.

Document title: Congruent Visual Speech Enhances Cortical Entrainment to Continuous Auditory Speech in Noise-Free Conditions.

Abstract sentences:
[0] UNLABELLED Congruent audiovisual speech enhances our ability to comprehend a speaker, even in noise-free conditions.
[1] When incongruent auditory and visual information is presented concurrently, it can hinder a listener's perception and even cause him or her to perceive information that was not presented in either modality.
[2] Efforts to investigate the neural basis of these effects have often focused on the special case of discrete audiovisual syllables that are spatially and temporally congruent, with less work done on the case of natural, continuous speech.
[3] Recent electrophysiological studies have demonstrated that cortical response measures to continuous auditory speech can be easily obtained using multivariate analysis methods.
[4] Here, we apply such methods to the case of audiovisual speech and, importantly, present a novel framework for indexing multisensory integration in the context of continuous speech.
[5] Specifically, we examine how the temporal and contextual congruency of ongoing audiovisual speech affects the cortical encoding of the speech envelope in humans using electroencephalography.
[6] We demonstrate that the cortical representation of the speech envelope is enhanced by the presentation of congruent audiovisual speech in noise-free conditions.
[7] Furthermore, we show that this is likely attributable to the contribution of neural generators that are not particularly active during unimodal stimulation and that it is most prominent at the temporal scale corresponding to syllabic rate (2-6 Hz).
[8] Finally, our data suggest that neural entrainment to the speech envelope is inhibited when the auditory and visual streams are incongruent both temporally and contextually.
[9] SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Seeing a speaker's face as he or she talks can greatly help in understanding what the speaker is saying.
[10] This is because the speaker's facial movements relay information about what the speaker is saying, but also, importantly, when the speaker is saying it.
[11] Studying how the brain uses this timing relationship to combine information from continuous auditory and visual speech has traditionally been methodologically difficult.
[12] Here we introduce a new approach for doing this using relatively inexpensive and noninvasive scalp recordings.
[13] Specifically, we show that the brain's representation of auditory speech is enhanced when the accompanying visual speech signal shares the same timing.
[14] Furthermore, we show that this enhancement is most pronounced at a time scale that corresponds to mean syllable length.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [1]
Explanation: Evidence states: "When incongruent auditory and visual information is presented concurrently, it can hinder a listener's perception and even cause him or her to perceive information that was not presented in either modality.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Auditory entrainment is strengthened when people see congruent visual and auditory information.

Document title: Congruent Visual Speech Enhances Cortical Entrainment to Continuous Auditory Speech in Noise-Free Conditions.

Abstract sentences:
[0] UNLABELLED Congruent audiovisual speech enhances our ability to comprehend a speaker, even in noise-free conditions.
[1] When incongruent auditory and visual information is presented concurrently, it can hinder a listener's perception and even cause him or her to perceive information that was not presented in either modality.
[2] Efforts to investigate the neural basis of these effects have often focused on the special case of discrete audiovisual syllables that are spatially and temporally congruent, with less work done on the case of natural, continuous speech.
[3] Recent electrophysiological studies have demonstrated that cortical response measures to continuous auditory speech can be easily obtained using multivariate analysis methods.
[4] Here, we apply such methods to the case of audiovisual speech and, importantly, present a novel framework for indexing multisensory integration in the context of continuous speech.
[5] Specifically, we examine how the temporal and contextual congruency of ongoing audiovisual speech affects the cortical encoding of the speech envelope in humans using electroencephalography.
[6] We demonstrate that the cortical representation of the speech envelope is enhanced by the presentation of congruent audiovisual speech in noise-free conditions.
[7] Furthermore, we show that this is likely attributable to the contribution of neural generators that are not particularly active during unimodal stimulation and that it is most prominent at the temporal scale corresponding to syllabic rate (2-6 Hz).
[8] Finally, our data suggest that neural entrainment to the speech envelope is inhibited when the auditory and visual streams are incongruent both temporally and contextually.
[9] SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Seeing a speaker's face as he or she talks can greatly help in understanding what the speaker is saying.
[10] This is because the speaker's facial movements relay information about what the speaker is saying, but also, importantly, when the speaker is saying it.
[11] Studying how the brain uses this timing relationship to combine information from continuous auditory and visual speech has traditionally been methodologically difficult.
[12] Here we introduce a new approach for doing this using relatively inexpensive and noninvasive scalp recordings.
[13] Specifically, we show that the brain's representation of auditory speech is enhanced when the accompanying visual speech signal shares the same timing.
[14] Furthermore, we show that this enhancement is most pronounced at a time scale that corresponds to mean syllable length.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [6]
Explanation: Evidence states: "We demonstrate that the cortical representation of the speech envelope is enhanced by the presentation of congruent audiovisual speech in noise-free conditions.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Auditory entrainment is strengthened when people see congruent visual and auditory information.

Document title: Congruent Visual Speech Enhances Cortical Entrainment to Continuous Auditory Speech in Noise-Free Conditions.

Abstract sentences:
[0] UNLABELLED Congruent audiovisual speech enhances our ability to comprehend a speaker, even in noise-free conditions.
[1] When incongruent auditory and visual information is presented concurrently, it can hinder a listener's perception and even cause him or her to perceive information that was not presented in either modality.
[2] Efforts to investigate the neural basis of these effects have often focused on the special case of discrete audiovisual syllables that are spatially and temporally congruent, with less work done on the case of natural, continuous speech.
[3] Recent electrophysiological studies have demonstrated that cortical response measures to continuous auditory speech can be easily obtained using multivariate analysis methods.
[4] Here, we apply such methods to the case of audiovisual speech and, importantly, present a novel framework for indexing multisensory integration in the context of continuous speech.
[5] Specifically, we examine how the temporal and contextual congruency of ongoing audiovisual speech affects the cortical encoding of the speech envelope in humans using electroencephalography.
[6] We demonstrate that the cortical representation of the speech envelope is enhanced by the presentation of congruent audiovisual speech in noise-free conditions.
[7] Furthermore, we show that this is likely attributable to the contribution of neural generators that are not particularly active during unimodal stimulation and that it is most prominent at the temporal scale corresponding to syllabic rate (2-6 Hz).
[8] Finally, our data suggest that neural entrainment to the speech envelope is inhibited when the auditory and visual streams are incongruent both temporally and contextually.
[9] SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Seeing a speaker's face as he or she talks can greatly help in understanding what the speaker is saying.
[10] This is because the speaker's facial movements relay information about what the speaker is saying, but also, importantly, when the speaker is saying it.
[11] Studying how the brain uses this timing relationship to combine information from continuous auditory and visual speech has traditionally been methodologically difficult.
[12] Here we introduce a new approach for doing this using relatively inexpensive and noninvasive scalp recordings.
[13] Specifically, we show that the brain's representation of auditory speech is enhanced when the accompanying visual speech signal shares the same timing.
[14] Furthermore, we show that this enhancement is most pronounced at a time scale that corresponds to mean syllable length.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [8]
Explanation: Evidence states: "Finally, our data suggest that neural entrainment to the speech envelope is inhibited when the auditory and visual streams are incongruent both temporally and contextually.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Auditory entrainment is strengthened when people see congruent visual and auditory information.

Document title: Congruent Visual Speech Enhances Cortical Entrainment to Continuous Auditory Speech in Noise-Free Conditions.

Abstract sentences:
[0] UNLABELLED Congruent audiovisual speech enhances our ability to comprehend a speaker, even in noise-free conditions.
[1] When incongruent auditory and visual information is presented concurrently, it can hinder a listener's perception and even cause him or her to perceive information that was not presented in either modality.
[2] Efforts to investigate the neural basis of these effects have often focused on the special case of discrete audiovisual syllables that are spatially and temporally congruent, with less work done on the case of natural, continuous speech.
[3] Recent electrophysiological studies have demonstrated that cortical response measures to continuous auditory speech can be easily obtained using multivariate analysis methods.
[4] Here, we apply such methods to the case of audiovisual speech and, importantly, present a novel framework for indexing multisensory integration in the context of continuous speech.
[5] Specifically, we examine how the temporal and contextual congruency of ongoing audiovisual speech affects the cortical encoding of the speech envelope in humans using electroencephalography.
[6] We demonstrate that the cortical representation of the speech envelope is enhanced by the presentation of congruent audiovisual speech in noise-free conditions.
[7] Furthermore, we show that this is likely attributable to the contribution of neural generators that are not particularly active during unimodal stimulation and that it is most prominent at the temporal scale corresponding to syllabic rate (2-6 Hz).
[8] Finally, our data suggest that neural entrainment to the speech envelope is inhibited when the auditory and visual streams are incongruent both temporally and contextually.
[9] SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Seeing a speaker's face as he or she talks can greatly help in understanding what the speaker is saying.
[10] This is because the speaker's facial movements relay information about what the speaker is saying, but also, importantly, when the speaker is saying it.
[11] Studying how the brain uses this timing relationship to combine information from continuous auditory and visual speech has traditionally been methodologically difficult.
[12] Here we introduce a new approach for doing this using relatively inexpensive and noninvasive scalp recordings.
[13] Specifically, we show that the brain's representation of auditory speech is enhanced when the accompanying visual speech signal shares the same timing.
[14] Furthermore, we show that this enhancement is most pronounced at a time scale that corresponds to mean syllable length.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [9]
Explanation: Evidence states: "SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Seeing a speaker's face as he or she talks can greatly help in understanding what the speaker is saying.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Auditory entrainment is strengthened when people see congruent visual and auditory information.

Document title: Congruent Visual Speech Enhances Cortical Entrainment to Continuous Auditory Speech in Noise-Free Conditions.

Abstract sentences:
[0] UNLABELLED Congruent audiovisual speech enhances our ability to comprehend a speaker, even in noise-free conditions.
[1] When incongruent auditory and visual information is presented concurrently, it can hinder a listener's perception and even cause him or her to perceive information that was not presented in either modality.
[2] Efforts to investigate the neural basis of these effects have often focused on the special case of discrete audiovisual syllables that are spatially and temporally congruent, with less work done on the case of natural, continuous speech.
[3] Recent electrophysiological studies have demonstrated that cortical response measures to continuous auditory speech can be easily obtained using multivariate analysis methods.
[4] Here, we apply such methods to the case of audiovisual speech and, importantly, present a novel framework for indexing multisensory integration in the context of continuous speech.
[5] Specifically, we examine how the temporal and contextual congruency of ongoing audiovisual speech affects the cortical encoding of the speech envelope in humans using electroencephalography.
[6] We demonstrate that the cortical representation of the speech envelope is enhanced by the presentation of congruent audiovisual speech in noise-free conditions.
[7] Furthermore, we show that this is likely attributable to the contribution of neural generators that are not particularly active during unimodal stimulation and that it is most prominent at the temporal scale corresponding to syllabic rate (2-6 Hz).
[8] Finally, our data suggest that neural entrainment to the speech envelope is inhibited when the auditory and visual streams are incongruent both temporally and contextually.
[9] SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Seeing a speaker's face as he or she talks can greatly help in understanding what the speaker is saying.
[10] This is because the speaker's facial movements relay information about what the speaker is saying, but also, importantly, when the speaker is saying it.
[11] Studying how the brain uses this timing relationship to combine information from continuous auditory and visual speech has traditionally been methodologically difficult.
[12] Here we introduce a new approach for doing this using relatively inexpensive and noninvasive scalp recordings.
[13] Specifically, we show that the brain's representation of auditory speech is enhanced when the accompanying visual speech signal shares the same timing.
[14] Furthermore, we show that this enhancement is most pronounced at a time scale that corresponds to mean syllable length.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [13]
Explanation: Evidence states: "Specifically, we show that the brain's representation of auditory speech is enhanced when the accompanying visual speech signal shares the same timing.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Autologous transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells causes a higher rate of opportunistic infections than induction therapy with anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies.

Document title: Induction therapy with autologous mesenchymal stem cells in living-related kidney transplants: a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract sentences:
[0] CONTEXT Antibody-based induction therapy plus calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) reduce acute rejection rates in kidney recipients; however, opportunistic infections and toxic CNI effects remain challenging.
[1] Reportedly, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have successfully treated graft-vs-host disease.
[2] OBJECTIVE To assess autologous MSCs as replacement of antibody induction for patients with end-stage renal disease who undergo ABO-compatible, cross-match-negative kidney transplants from a living-related donor.
[3] DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS One hundred fifty-nine patients were enrolled in this single-site, prospective, open-label, randomized study from February 2008-May 2009, when recruitment was completed.
[4] INTERVENTION Patients were inoculated with marrow-derived autologous MSC (1-2 x 10(6)/kg) at kidney reperfusion and two weeks later.
[5] Fifty-three patients received standard-dose and 52 patients received low-dose CNIs (80% of standard); 51 patients in the control group received anti-IL-2 receptor antibody plus standard-dose CNIs.
[6] MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary measure was 1-year incidence of acute rejection and renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]); the secondary measure was patient and graft survival and incidence of adverse events.
[7] RESULTS Patient and graft survival at 13 to 30 months was similar in all groups.
[8] After 6 months, 4 of 53 patients (7.5%) in the autologous MSC plus standard-dose CNI group (95% CI, 0.4%-14.7%; P = .04) and 4 of 52 patients (7.7%) in the low-dose group (95% CI, 0.5%-14.9%; P = .046) compared with 11 of 51 controls (21.6%; 95% CI, 10.5%-32.6%) had biopsy-confirmed acute rejection.
[9] None of the patients in either autologous MSC group had glucorticoid-resistant rejection, whereas 4 patients (7.8%) in the control group did (95% CI, 0.6%-15.1%; overall P = .02).
[10] Renal function recovered faster among both MSC groups showing increased eGFR levels during the first month after surgery than the control group.
[11] Patients receiving standard-dose CNI had a mean difference of 6.2 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (95% CI, 0.4-11.9; P=.04) and those in the low-dose CNI of 10.0 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (95% CI, 3.8-16.2; P=.002).
[12] Also, during the 1-year follow-up, combined analysis of MSC-treated groups revealed significantly decreased risk of opportunistic infections than the control group (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85, P=.02)   CONCLUSION Among patients undergoing renal transplant, the use of autologous MSCs compared with anti-IL-2 receptor antibody induction therapy resulted in lower incidence of acute rejection, decreased risk of opportunistic infection, and better estimated renal function at 1 year.
[13] TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00658073.

[Assistant]
Label: CONTRADICTS
Rationale sentence ids: [12]
Explanation: Evidence states: "Also, during the 1-year follow-up, combined analysis of MSC-treated groups revealed significantly decreased risk of opportunistic infections than the control group (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85, P=.02)   CONCLUSION Among patients undergoing renal transplant, the use of autologous MSCs compared with anti-IL-2 receptor antibody induction therapy resulted in lower incidence of acute rejection, decreased risk of opportunistic infection, and better estimated renal function at 1 year.". This contradicts the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Autologous transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells causes fewer opportunistic infections than induction therapy with anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies.

Document title: Induction therapy with autologous mesenchymal stem cells in living-related kidney transplants: a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract sentences:
[0] CONTEXT Antibody-based induction therapy plus calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) reduce acute rejection rates in kidney recipients; however, opportunistic infections and toxic CNI effects remain challenging.
[1] Reportedly, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have successfully treated graft-vs-host disease.
[2] OBJECTIVE To assess autologous MSCs as replacement of antibody induction for patients with end-stage renal disease who undergo ABO-compatible, cross-match-negative kidney transplants from a living-related donor.
[3] DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS One hundred fifty-nine patients were enrolled in this single-site, prospective, open-label, randomized study from February 2008-May 2009, when recruitment was completed.
[4] INTERVENTION Patients were inoculated with marrow-derived autologous MSC (1-2 x 10(6)/kg) at kidney reperfusion and two weeks later.
[5] Fifty-three patients received standard-dose and 52 patients received low-dose CNIs (80% of standard); 51 patients in the control group received anti-IL-2 receptor antibody plus standard-dose CNIs.
[6] MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary measure was 1-year incidence of acute rejection and renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]); the secondary measure was patient and graft survival and incidence of adverse events.
[7] RESULTS Patient and graft survival at 13 to 30 months was similar in all groups.
[8] After 6 months, 4 of 53 patients (7.5%) in the autologous MSC plus standard-dose CNI group (95% CI, 0.4%-14.7%; P = .04) and 4 of 52 patients (7.7%) in the low-dose group (95% CI, 0.5%-14.9%; P = .046) compared with 11 of 51 controls (21.6%; 95% CI, 10.5%-32.6%) had biopsy-confirmed acute rejection.
[9] None of the patients in either autologous MSC group had glucorticoid-resistant rejection, whereas 4 patients (7.8%) in the control group did (95% CI, 0.6%-15.1%; overall P = .02).
[10] Renal function recovered faster among both MSC groups showing increased eGFR levels during the first month after surgery than the control group.
[11] Patients receiving standard-dose CNI had a mean difference of 6.2 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (95% CI, 0.4-11.9; P=.04) and those in the low-dose CNI of 10.0 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (95% CI, 3.8-16.2; P=.002).
[12] Also, during the 1-year follow-up, combined analysis of MSC-treated groups revealed significantly decreased risk of opportunistic infections than the control group (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85, P=.02)   CONCLUSION Among patients undergoing renal transplant, the use of autologous MSCs compared with anti-IL-2 receptor antibody induction therapy resulted in lower incidence of acute rejection, decreased risk of opportunistic infection, and better estimated renal function at 1 year.
[13] TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00658073.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [12]
Explanation: Evidence states: "Also, during the 1-year follow-up, combined analysis of MSC-treated groups revealed significantly decreased risk of opportunistic infections than the control group (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85, P=.02)   CONCLUSION Among patients undergoing renal transplant, the use of autologous MSCs compared with anti-IL-2 receptor antibody induction therapy resulted in lower incidence of acute rejection, decreased risk of opportunistic infection, and better estimated renal function at 1 year.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Autologous transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells has lower rates of rejection than induction therapy with anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies.

Document title: Induction therapy with autologous mesenchymal stem cells in living-related kidney transplants: a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract sentences:
[0] CONTEXT Antibody-based induction therapy plus calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) reduce acute rejection rates in kidney recipients; however, opportunistic infections and toxic CNI effects remain challenging.
[1] Reportedly, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have successfully treated graft-vs-host disease.
[2] OBJECTIVE To assess autologous MSCs as replacement of antibody induction for patients with end-stage renal disease who undergo ABO-compatible, cross-match-negative kidney transplants from a living-related donor.
[3] DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS One hundred fifty-nine patients were enrolled in this single-site, prospective, open-label, randomized study from February 2008-May 2009, when recruitment was completed.
[4] INTERVENTION Patients were inoculated with marrow-derived autologous MSC (1-2 x 10(6)/kg) at kidney reperfusion and two weeks later.
[5] Fifty-three patients received standard-dose and 52 patients received low-dose CNIs (80% of standard); 51 patients in the control group received anti-IL-2 receptor antibody plus standard-dose CNIs.
[6] MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary measure was 1-year incidence of acute rejection and renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]); the secondary measure was patient and graft survival and incidence of adverse events.
[7] RESULTS Patient and graft survival at 13 to 30 months was similar in all groups.
[8] After 6 months, 4 of 53 patients (7.5%) in the autologous MSC plus standard-dose CNI group (95% CI, 0.4%-14.7%; P = .04) and 4 of 52 patients (7.7%) in the low-dose group (95% CI, 0.5%-14.9%; P = .046) compared with 11 of 51 controls (21.6%; 95% CI, 10.5%-32.6%) had biopsy-confirmed acute rejection.
[9] None of the patients in either autologous MSC group had glucorticoid-resistant rejection, whereas 4 patients (7.8%) in the control group did (95% CI, 0.6%-15.1%; overall P = .02).
[10] Renal function recovered faster among both MSC groups showing increased eGFR levels during the first month after surgery than the control group.
[11] Patients receiving standard-dose CNI had a mean difference of 6.2 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (95% CI, 0.4-11.9; P=.04) and those in the low-dose CNI of 10.0 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (95% CI, 3.8-16.2; P=.002).
[12] Also, during the 1-year follow-up, combined analysis of MSC-treated groups revealed significantly decreased risk of opportunistic infections than the control group (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85, P=.02)   CONCLUSION Among patients undergoing renal transplant, the use of autologous MSCs compared with anti-IL-2 receptor antibody induction therapy resulted in lower incidence of acute rejection, decreased risk of opportunistic infection, and better estimated renal function at 1 year.
[13] TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00658073.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [8]
Explanation: Evidence states: "After 6 months, 4 of 53 patients (7.5%) in the autologous MSC plus standard-dose CNI group (95% CI, 0.4%-14.7%; P = .04) and 4 of 52 patients (7.7%) in the low-dose group (95% CI, 0.5%-14.9%; P = .046) compared with 11 of 51 controls (21.6%; 95% CI, 10.5%-32.6%) had biopsy-confirmed acute rejection.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Autologous transplantation of mesenchymal stem cells has lower rates of rejection than induction therapy with anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies.

Document title: Induction therapy with autologous mesenchymal stem cells in living-related kidney transplants: a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract sentences:
[0] CONTEXT Antibody-based induction therapy plus calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) reduce acute rejection rates in kidney recipients; however, opportunistic infections and toxic CNI effects remain challenging.
[1] Reportedly, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have successfully treated graft-vs-host disease.
[2] OBJECTIVE To assess autologous MSCs as replacement of antibody induction for patients with end-stage renal disease who undergo ABO-compatible, cross-match-negative kidney transplants from a living-related donor.
[3] DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS One hundred fifty-nine patients were enrolled in this single-site, prospective, open-label, randomized study from February 2008-May 2009, when recruitment was completed.
[4] INTERVENTION Patients were inoculated with marrow-derived autologous MSC (1-2 x 10(6)/kg) at kidney reperfusion and two weeks later.
[5] Fifty-three patients received standard-dose and 52 patients received low-dose CNIs (80% of standard); 51 patients in the control group received anti-IL-2 receptor antibody plus standard-dose CNIs.
[6] MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary measure was 1-year incidence of acute rejection and renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]); the secondary measure was patient and graft survival and incidence of adverse events.
[7] RESULTS Patient and graft survival at 13 to 30 months was similar in all groups.
[8] After 6 months, 4 of 53 patients (7.5%) in the autologous MSC plus standard-dose CNI group (95% CI, 0.4%-14.7%; P = .04) and 4 of 52 patients (7.7%) in the low-dose group (95% CI, 0.5%-14.9%; P = .046) compared with 11 of 51 controls (21.6%; 95% CI, 10.5%-32.6%) had biopsy-confirmed acute rejection.
[9] None of the patients in either autologous MSC group had glucorticoid-resistant rejection, whereas 4 patients (7.8%) in the control group did (95% CI, 0.6%-15.1%; overall P = .02).
[10] Renal function recovered faster among both MSC groups showing increased eGFR levels during the first month after surgery than the control group.
[11] Patients receiving standard-dose CNI had a mean difference of 6.2 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (95% CI, 0.4-11.9; P=.04) and those in the low-dose CNI of 10.0 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (95% CI, 3.8-16.2; P=.002).
[12] Also, during the 1-year follow-up, combined analysis of MSC-treated groups revealed significantly decreased risk of opportunistic infections than the control group (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85, P=.02)   CONCLUSION Among patients undergoing renal transplant, the use of autologous MSCs compared with anti-IL-2 receptor antibody induction therapy resulted in lower incidence of acute rejection, decreased risk of opportunistic infection, and better estimated renal function at 1 year.
[13] TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00658073.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [12]
Explanation: Evidence states: "Also, during the 1-year follow-up, combined analysis of MSC-treated groups revealed significantly decreased risk of opportunistic infections than the control group (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85, P=.02)   CONCLUSION Among patients undergoing renal transplant, the use of autologous MSCs compared with anti-IL-2 receptor antibody induction therapy resulted in lower incidence of acute rejection, decreased risk of opportunistic infection, and better estimated renal function at 1 year.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Autophagy declines in aged organisms.

Document title: Restoration of chaperone-mediated autophagy in aging liver improves cellular maintenance and hepatic function

Abstract sentences:
[0] Chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA), a selective mechanism for degradation of cytosolic proteins in lysosomes, contributes to the removal of altered proteins as part of the cellular quality-control systems.
[1] We have previously found that CMA activity declines in aged organisms and have proposed that this failure in cellular clearance could contribute to the accumulation of altered proteins, the abnormal cellular homeostasis and, eventually, the functional loss characteristic of aged organisms.
[2] To determine whether these negative features of aging can be prevented by maintaining efficient autophagic activity until late in life, in this work we have corrected the CMA defect in aged rodents.
[3] We have generated a double transgenic mouse model in which the amount of the lysosomal receptor for CMA, previously shown to decrease in abundance with age, can be modulated.
[4] We have analyzed in this model the consequences of preventing the age-dependent decrease in receptor abundance in aged rodents at the cellular and organ levels.
[5] We show here that CMA activity is maintained until advanced ages if the decrease in the receptor abundance is prevented and that preservation of autophagic activity is associated with lower intracellular accumulation of damaged proteins, better ability to handle protein damage and improved organ function.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [1]
Explanation: Evidence states: "We have previously found that CMA activity declines in aged organisms and have proposed that this failure in cellular clearance could contribute to the accumulation of altered proteins, the abnormal cellular homeostasis and, eventually, the functional loss characteristic of aged organisms.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Bariatric surgery has a positive impact on mental health.

Document title: Mental Health Conditions Among Patients Seeking and Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

Abstract sentences:
[0] IMPORTANCE Bariatric surgery is associated with sustained weight loss and improved physical health status for severely obese individuals.
[1] Mental health conditions may be common among patients seeking bariatric surgery; however, the prevalence of these conditions and whether they are associated with postoperative outcomes remains unknown.
[2] OBJECTIVE To determine the prevalence of mental health conditions among bariatric surgery candidates and recipients, to evaluate the association between preoperative mental health conditions and health outcomes following bariatric surgery, and to evaluate the association between surgery and the clinical course of mental health conditions.
[3] DATA SOURCES We searched PubMed, MEDLINE on OVID, and PsycINFO for studies published between January 1988 and November 2015.
[4] Study quality was assessed using an adapted tool for risk of bias; quality of evidence was rated based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
[5] FINDINGS We identified 68 publications meeting inclusion criteria: 59 reporting the prevalence of preoperative mental health conditions (65,363 patients) and 27 reporting associations between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative outcomes (50,182 patients).
[6] Among patients seeking and undergoing bariatric surgery, the most common mental health conditions, based on random-effects estimates of prevalence, were depression (19% [95% CI, 14%-25%]) and binge eating disorder (17% [95% CI, 13%-21%]).
[7] There was conflicting evidence regarding the association between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative weight loss.
[8] Neither depression nor binge eating disorder was consistently associated with differences in weight outcomes.
[9] Bariatric surgery was, however, consistently associated with postoperative decreases in the prevalence of depression (7 studies; 8%-74% decrease) and the severity of depressive symptoms (6 studies; 40%-70% decrease).
[10] CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Mental health conditions are common among bariatric surgery patients-in particular, depression and binge eating disorder.
[11] There is inconsistent evidence regarding the association between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative weight loss.
[12] Moderate-quality evidence supports an association between bariatric surgery and lower rates of depression postoperatively.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [9]
Explanation: Evidence states: "Bariatric surgery was, however, consistently associated with postoperative decreases in the prevalence of depression (7 studies; 8%-74% decrease) and the severity of depressive symptoms (6 studies; 40%-70% decrease).". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Bariatric surgery has a positive impact on mental health.

Document title: Mental Health Conditions Among Patients Seeking and Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

Abstract sentences:
[0] IMPORTANCE Bariatric surgery is associated with sustained weight loss and improved physical health status for severely obese individuals.
[1] Mental health conditions may be common among patients seeking bariatric surgery; however, the prevalence of these conditions and whether they are associated with postoperative outcomes remains unknown.
[2] OBJECTIVE To determine the prevalence of mental health conditions among bariatric surgery candidates and recipients, to evaluate the association between preoperative mental health conditions and health outcomes following bariatric surgery, and to evaluate the association between surgery and the clinical course of mental health conditions.
[3] DATA SOURCES We searched PubMed, MEDLINE on OVID, and PsycINFO for studies published between January 1988 and November 2015.
[4] Study quality was assessed using an adapted tool for risk of bias; quality of evidence was rated based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
[5] FINDINGS We identified 68 publications meeting inclusion criteria: 59 reporting the prevalence of preoperative mental health conditions (65,363 patients) and 27 reporting associations between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative outcomes (50,182 patients).
[6] Among patients seeking and undergoing bariatric surgery, the most common mental health conditions, based on random-effects estimates of prevalence, were depression (19% [95% CI, 14%-25%]) and binge eating disorder (17% [95% CI, 13%-21%]).
[7] There was conflicting evidence regarding the association between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative weight loss.
[8] Neither depression nor binge eating disorder was consistently associated with differences in weight outcomes.
[9] Bariatric surgery was, however, consistently associated with postoperative decreases in the prevalence of depression (7 studies; 8%-74% decrease) and the severity of depressive symptoms (6 studies; 40%-70% decrease).
[10] CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Mental health conditions are common among bariatric surgery patients-in particular, depression and binge eating disorder.
[11] There is inconsistent evidence regarding the association between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative weight loss.
[12] Moderate-quality evidence supports an association between bariatric surgery and lower rates of depression postoperatively.

[Assistant]
Label: SUPPORTS
Rationale sentence ids: [12]
Explanation: Evidence states: "Moderate-quality evidence supports an association between bariatric surgery and lower rates of depression postoperatively.". This supports the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Basophils counteract disease development in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Document title: BASOPHILS AND THE T HELPER 2 ENVIRONMENT CAN PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS

Abstract sentences:
[0] In systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), self-reactive antibodies can target the kidney (lupus nephritis), leading to functional failure and possible mortality.
[1] We report that activation of basophils by autoreactive IgE causes their homing to lymph nodes, promoting T helper type 2 (T(H)2) cell differentiation and enhancing the production of self-reactive antibodies that cause lupus-like nephritis in mice lacking the Src family protein tyrosine kinase Lyn (Lyn(-/-) mice).
[2] Individuals with SLE also have elevated serum IgE, self-reactive IgEs and activated basophils that express CD62 ligand (CD62L) and the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II molecule human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR), parameters that are associated with increased disease activity and active lupus nephritis.
[3] Basophils were also present in the lymph nodes and spleen of subjects with SLE.
[4] Thus, in Lyn(-/-) mice, basophils and IgE autoantibodies amplify autoantibody production that leads to lupus nephritis, and in individuals with SLE IgE autoantibodies and activated basophils are factors associated with disease activity and nephritis.

[Assistant]
Label: CONTRADICTS
Rationale sentence ids: [1]
Explanation: Evidence states: "We report that activation of basophils by autoreactive IgE causes their homing to lymph nodes, promoting T helper type 2 (T(H)2) cell differentiation and enhancing the production of self-reactive antibodies that cause lupus-like nephritis in mice lacking the Src family protein tyrosine kinase Lyn (Lyn(-/-) mice).". This contradicts the claim.


[User]
Determine whether the claim is SUPPORTS, CONTRADICTS, or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION based only on the provided abstract. Use sentence indices as rationale evidence.

Claim: Basophils counteract disease development in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Document title: BASOPHILS AND THE T HELPER 2 ENVIRONMENT CAN PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS

Abstract sentences:
[0] In systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), self-reactive antibodies can target the kidney (lupus nephritis), leading to functional failure and possible mortality.
[1] We report that activation of basophils by autoreactive IgE causes their homing to lymph nodes, promoting T helper type 2 (T(H)2) cell differentiation and enhancing the production of self-reactive antibodies that cause lupus-like nephritis in mice lacking the Src family protein tyrosine kinase Lyn (Lyn(-/-) mice).
[2] Individuals with SLE also have elevated serum IgE, self-reactive IgEs and activated basophils that express CD62 ligand (CD62L) and the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II molecule human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR), parameters that are associated with increased disease activity and active lupus nephritis.
[3] Basophils were also present in the lymph nodes and spleen of subjects with SLE.
[4] Thus, in Lyn(-/-) mice, basophils and IgE autoantibodies amplify autoantibody production that leads to lupus nephritis, and in individuals with SLE IgE autoantibodies and activated basophils are factors associated with disease activity and nephritis.

[Assistant]
Label: CONTRADICTS
Rationale sentence ids: [2]
Explanation: Evidence states: "Individuals with SLE also have elevated serum IgE, self-reactive IgEs and activated basophils that express CD62 ligand (CD62L) and the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II molecule human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR), parameters that are associated with increased disease activity and active lupus nephritis.". This contradicts the claim.