Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Input: Consider Input: The story includes one expert’s estimate of the cost of treating brain and spinal cord defects, but it does not discuss those costs may be affected by folic acid fortification or how the cost of fortification affects food prices. Though individuals don’t face a huge cost, the aggregate cost of fortification is substantial. The story could have mentioned this at least briefly. The story highlights the decline in birth defects that is attributed to folic acid supplementation. However, it does not include a source for the statement that “fortification with the vitamin prevents an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 brain and spinal cord defects in both countries.” By contrast, a CDC web page on folic acid supplementation states that each year in the U.S. “[a]n estimated 1,000 more babies are born healthy since fortification.” http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/folicacid/data.html The story performs a service by bringing attention to the complex and difficult balancing of benefits and harms that comes with decisions about adding supplements to food. As mentioned above, the overall thrust of the story adequately captures the basic point that researchers are struggling to determine whether, what, and for whom folic acid supplementation may present potential harm. However, in some cases the comments of Dr. Mason portray a much stronger association between folic acid supplementation and cancer risk than even his own journal publications put forward. By intertwining the researcher’s personal statements with references to published trials and reviews, the story blurs the distinction between speculation and evidence. The story makes clear the complexity of and uncertainty surrounding possible associations between folic acid supplementation and cancer. However, the story exaggerates what is known about potential cancer risk by highlighting comments supporting a potential link with folic acid supplementation, while failing to provide context or contrary information. The story includes an estimate by Dr. Joel Mason that “excess folic acid consumption may cause an extra 15,000 cases of colorectal cancer each year in the U.S. and Canada.” But the story fails to define excess consumption, nor does it note that the are more than 160,000 new cases of colorectal cancer reported in the U.S. and Canada each year. And while the researcher may have told the reporter that he believes supplementation may be boosting cancer rates, a journal article Mason recently co-authored states that “Future studies need to explore whether a causal relationship exists between supraphysiological levels of folate intake and colorectal carcinogenesis.” Also, while the story states that “researchers noticed that rates of colorectal cancer went up in North America around the same time that fortification began,” the reporter should have explained the apparent discrepancy with CDC statements that between 1998 (when mandatory folic acid supplementation began in the U.S.) and 2005 both colorectal cancer incidence and deaths declined. References: Mason article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19057184 Cancer stats: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/ http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/trends.htm http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/About%20cancer/Cancer%20statistics/Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics.aspx   A story of this length on a subject that is hotly debated among nutrition researchers should include comments from more than one nutrition researcher. The story fails to note that according to a disclosure statement in one of his recent journal articles, Dr. Mason has been a paid consultant to Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, a manufacturer of multivitamins. Reference: Disclosure statement with Joel B. Mason, Aaron Dickstein, Paul F. Jacques, Paul Haggarty, Jacob Selhub, Gerard Dallal, and Irwin H. Rosenberg A Temporal Association between Folic Acid Fortification and an Increase in Colorectal Cancer Rates May Be Illuminating Important Biological Principles: A Hypothesis Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2007 16: 1325-1329. However, because the story does touch on several aspects of the debate, we will give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion even though we wish other sources had been named or that other nutrition experts had been quoted. The story points out the foods that are fortified with folic acid. However, there is no advice about how individuals could estimate their daily intake of folic acid or alter it, if they desired. The story points out that folic acid supplementation of flour has been required in the U.S. since 1998. It would have been helpful to also discuss whether and how consumers could reduce their intake of folic acid, if desired. Questions about potential harms of folic acid supplementation are indeed a hot topic in nutrition research. However, most of the studies and other reports mentioned in this story were published more than two years ago, so the debate is not as new as the story implies. Given the different aspects of the debate reflected in the story, we think it’s safe to assume this didn’t rely solely or largely on a news release – although we wonder why it relied so heavily on one nutrition expert’s perspectives.

Output: Folic acid might be losing its sheen


Input: Consider Input: "Quoting the study lead, the cost of ginger dietary supplements ranges from $6 to $30 for 50 to 100 capsules; however, as noted by the researchers, it is not apparent if dietary supplements would be as effective as the formulation developed specifically for the study. The study lead is quoted as saying the use of ginger resulted in a 40% improvement in patients’ nausea. In the placebo group, the study lead indicated that ""hardly any difference"" was noted. But we’re not given any context on important questions such as how much change in the nausea scale is actually clinical perceptible to patients. This is what’s really needed to understand any potential benefit. While there were no reported adverse effects associated with the use of ginger in this study, the story points out that ginger supplements can interfere with blood clotting, which can be particularly harmful to cancer patients undergoing treatment or surgery. The story suggests that people should talk with their doctors before using it. The story does not make it fully apparent that this research has not yet been published in a medical journal and only the abstract has been released. Unlike published articles, this study has not gone through a review process to check for errors in the methodology. While the story points out that 2/3 of the study participants were being treated for breast cancer, it would also be important to clearly state that the majority (90%) were women, which suggests that the results may not be applicable to the general population. Furthermore, it is not clear from the story or the abstract if patients received different types of chemotherapy or why the researchers included patients with various types of cancer. The story does not appear to exaggerate the prevalence of nausea as a side effect of chemotherapy treatment. In addition to interviewing the research lead, this story also includes quotes from a director at the American Cancer Society, as well as the president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; however, the president of the oncology society did not comment directly on the research. The story mentions that the study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and researches did not have any ties with the capsule maker who supplied the ginger formulation for this study. The story briefly mentioned anti-emetics, which reduce vomiting, but more detail could have been supplied regarding the efficacy of other medications for chemotherapy-related nausea. Ginger capsules sold as dietary supplements and products containing ginger flavoring, such as ginger teas or ginger spice, are widely available; however, the story notes that they may not provide the same benefits as the formulation used in the study. According to the story, the company that developed the capsule used in this study is seeking approval from the FDA to market the ginger formulation as an anti-nausea drug. Up front, the story points out that ginger has long been used to quell nausea; however, it also mentions that this is the first large-scale study evaluating its efficacy in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Other studies, as this story indicates, have had conflicting results. This story does not appear to rely on a press release."

Output: Study: Ginger capsules ease chemotherapy nausea


Input: Consider Input: A Canadian-American cosmologist and two Swiss scientists split this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics on Tuesday for not quite answering those universal questions, but getting closer to the cosmic truths. Canadian-born James Peebles, 84, an emeritus professor at Princeton University, won for his theoretical discoveries in cosmology, about what happened soon after the Big Bang that eventually led to the formation of galaxies and the universe as we know it. Swiss star-gazers Michel Mayor, 77, and Didier Queloz, 53, both of the University of Geneva, were honored for finding an exoplanet — a planet outside our solar system — that orbits a sun-like star. A day of deep astrophysics and talk of extraterrestrial life also included pop humor, with the Nobel Prize committee quoting from the theme song of the American TV sitcom, “The Big Bang Theory,” whose protagonists, Sheldon and Amy, won a physics Nobel in the series finale, and a giggling Peebles referring to singer Bob Dylan. “This year’s Nobel laureates in physics have painted a picture of the universe far stranger and more wonderful than we ever could have imagined,” said Ulf Danielsson of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, in announcing the laureates. “Our view of our place in the universe will never be the same again.” Peebles’ work is a deeply theoretical look back in time and space at how the universe came to its current form, mostly filled with dark matter and dark energy we can’t even see. It’s probably the first Nobel for purely theoretical cosmology, instead of something observed, noted CalTech physicist Sean Carroll. Peebles, hailed as one of the most influential cosmologists of his time, who realized the importance of the cosmic radiation background born of the Big Bang, will collect one half of the 9-million kronor ($918,000) cash award. “Much of it will go to charity,” Peebles told colleagues at a Princeton news conference. Then after a pause, he changed that to “Some of it will go to charity. Some of it will go to our children.” Mayor, who is an astrophysicist, and Queloz, an astronomer who is also at the University of Cambridge in Britain, will share the other half. Their finding of the first planet outside our solar system circling a star like our own made astronomers look harder for life elsewhere in the universe. “Maybe we can discover some form of life. We don’t know what kind of form,” Mayor said Tuesday as he arrived in Madrid for a scientific speaking engagement. He said scientists “are absolutely certain that a lot of these planets have good conditions for life.” Mayor and Queloz started a revolution in astronomy when they discovered 51 Pegasi B, a gaseous ball comparable with Jupiter, in 1995 — a time when, as Mayor recalled, “no one knew whether exoplanets existed or not.” That was “the first step in our search for, ‘Are we alone?’” said astronomer Lisa Kaltenegger, director of the Carl Sagan Institute at Cornell University. More than 4,000 exoplanets have since been found in the Milky Way, and scientists think one out of every four or five stars have planets. “We have 200 billion stars out there in our galaxy alone, so I like our chances,” Kaltenegger said. Queloz was meeting Tuesday with other academics interested in finding new planets when the press office at Cambridge University interrupted to tell him the big news: He had won the Nobel. He thought it was joke at first. “I could barely breathe,” Queloz told The Associated Press. “It’s enormous. It’s beyond usual emotions. My hand was shaking for a long time. I’m trying to digest it.” Geoff Marcy, who headed one of the teams that rivaled Mayor and Queloz, praised their work. In the 1990s “we were all trying to carry a search for planets without ever thinking we would succeed,” Marcy said. “None of us imagined even finding one, never mind the thousands we found.” Marcy, who left the University of California Berkeley after accusations of sexual harassment, said he didn’t know if he would have shared in the prize if it weren’t for the scandal. Swedish academy member Mats Larsson said this year’s was “one of the easiest physics prizes for a long time to explain.” That can’t quite be said for Peebles’ theoretical work. “Jim Peebles absolutely was one of the leaders in trying to understand how did we get here, the nature of cosmology, the nature of the universe at large,” said astronomer Dimitar Sasselov, director of Harvard University’s Origins of Life Initiative. Peebles’ work, which began in the mid-1960s, set the stage for a “transformation” of cosmology over the last half-century, using theoretical tools and calculations that helped interpret traces from the infancy of the universe, the Nobel committee said. A clearly delighted Peebles giggled repeatedly during a phone interview with AP, recalling how he answered a 5:30 a.m. phone call from Stockholm thinking that “it’s either something very wonderful or it’s something horrible.” The astrophysicist, who said his life had suddenly turned topsy-turvy, will make sure he picks up his prize. “I’ve always loved Bob Dylan,” he said, referring to the singer-songwriter who won the literature prize in 2016 but refused to participate in the Nobel ceremony. “I can’t forgive him for not showing up to the scene of (his) Nobel prize.” And in a case of life imitating art, Tuesday’s Nobel Prize announcement included the opening lyrics of “The Big Bang Theory” theme song: “Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state, then nearly 14 billion years ago, expansion started.” The sitcom was a “fantastic achievement” that brought the “world of science to laptops and living rooms around the world,” said Goran Hansson, secretary general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. So referencing its theme song seemed fitting, he said. The cash prize comes with a gold medal and a diploma that are received at an elegant ceremony in Stockholm on Dec. 10, the anniversary of the death of prize founder Alfred Nobel in 1896, together with the winners of five other Nobel prizes. The sixth one, the peace prize, is handed out in Oslo, Norway, on the same day. On Monday, Americans William G. Kaelin Jr. and Gregg L. Semenza and Britain’s Peter J. Ratcliffe won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, for discovering details of how the body’s cells sense and react to low oxygen levels, providing a foothold for developing new treatments for anemia, cancer and other diseases. Nobel, a Swedish industrialist and the inventor of dynamite, decided the physics, chemistry, medicine and literature prizes should be awarded in Stockholm, and the peace prize in Oslo. The Nobel Prize for Chemistry will be announced Wednesday, two Literature Prizes will be awarded on Thursday, and the Peace Prize comes Friday. This year will see two Literature Prizes handed out because the one last year was suspended after a scandal rocked the Swedish Academy. ___ Keyton reported from Stockholm. Associated Press writers Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen, Denmark; Jamey Keaten in Geneva; Danica Kirka in London, and Christopher Chester and Malcolm Ritter in New York contributed to this report. ___ Read more stories on the 2019 Nobel Prizes by The Associated Press at https://www.apnews.com/NobelPrizes


Output: Are we alone? Nobel Prize goes to 3 who tackled cosmic query.