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.

Example Input: Igor is a 13-year old tiger living in the zoo in the southern Hungarian town of Szeged. It has been suffering from hip joint pains for years. The treatment, used more widely on humans than animals, cures injured joints with tissue taken from patients’ own fatty tissue, which contains regenerative stem cells, doctors said. These are injected back into the ailing joints. “The essence of stem-cell treatment is that we can achieve an improvement in the quality of life of patients who cannot be helped by operations or medical treatment,” said Robert Gippert, the veterinarian who operated on Igor’s hip. “Just like in humans, the worn out joint of Igor the tiger will heal due to the regenerative and self-healing effects of stem cells, without the use of external materials,” he added. The sedated tiger was lying peacefully on its side on the operating table, with its big paws sticking out from below a green blanket. After Igor wakes up, it could take two to three weeks before vets can judge the improvement in its movement.
Example Output: Igor the Siberian tiger gets stem-cell hip treatment in Hungary.

Example Input: The story does not mention the cost of adult male circumcision outside of a clinical trail. It is also not clear whether this is a reimbursible procedure for adult males in the USA when no acute problem exists. The story appropriately describes the design of the two similar studies and provides both absolute and relative evidence that male circumcision reduces a man's risk of acquiring HIV via heterosexual sex. The story also mentions that the trials were stopped early because the benefit of male circumcision so significantly reduced the risk of acquiring HIV that it would be unethical to continue a trial in which uncircumcised men were not offered this protection. What is not mentioned is that the absolute number of avoided infections will be low in lower prevalence populations, so the risks of complications may outweigh the potential benefits for an individual of low risk. The story mentions potential harms of male circumcision such as mild infections. These are treatable and rare, especially when the procedure is performed by a trained medical professional. However, it is difficult to assess the negative consequences of surgery as no publication of adverse events is reviewable. It is also possible that side effects or negative consequences in the real-world (rather than a clinical trial) would be more common. The story doesn't explain whether there was a placebo arm of the study. Was there a sham operation? If so, were patients and evaluators blinded regarding treatment? This is a key indicator of study quality that is not commented upon. (One could posit that there is a reduced frequency of sexual encounters after this surgery, and this is the critical predictor of reduced acquisition of HIV, not the surgery itself.) The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story quotes an NIH official for perspective on the results of these studies. But since the NIH sponsored the study, he does have an interest in its outcome. It also quoted representatives of the World Health Organization and the Global AIDS Alliance. There are experts who would disagree with public health-related mass circumcision programs, for reasons both cultural and related to quality of life. The story mentions male circumcision as one method of reducing the transmission of HIV. But the story also mentions safer sex practices such as using condoms for better protection against HIV. The story reports on two large studies of male circumcision and reduced HIV in African heterosexual men. We are not told if these studies have been reviewed in a peer-reviewed journal or where they will be published. The results of these studies may be applicable regardless of geography: While more male infants are routinely circumcised in the U.S. than in Africa,  this surgery is available for uncircumcised adult men in the U.S. who wish to reduce their risk of HIV transmission from heterosexual sex. Other protection against the HIV is still necessary. The story does note that this is a routine surgical procedure with few compilcations. What is stressed in the press release, but not the article, is that this procedure should only be performed by a medical professional who can also provide appropriate post-operative care during the healing period. Availability of safe circumcision and safe postoperative care is far from certain around the world. It is clear from the story that the link between male circumcision and HIV prevention was noted as long ago as the late 1980s. The story used several independent experts for comment, so it appears unlikely that it relied solely or largely on a news release.
Example Output: Two studies in Africa link male circumcision to lower risk of HIV

Example Input: "As a matter of course, stories about the increased use of drugs should report the drugs’ prices. A change in guidelines based on the study would increase the number of patients eligible for treatment by several hundred thousand in the US. The annualized cost of drug treatment is $12,000-$24,000 depending on the regimen, leading to potential new expenditures of $24 to $48 billion. While there are significant offsets, the potential for this level of additional costs should have been included in the story The story states that delaying treatment ""nearly doubles the risk of dying over the next several years"" and yields a ""70 percent improvement in survival."" This reporting is vague. The story should have compared absolute risks, not relative risks. See our primer on this issue. The story should have included the time span studied. These numbers should have stated the two death rates directly so readers can understand the magnitude of the benefit–whether the risk of death went from [say] 2 percent to 1 percent or from 30 percent to 15 percent. The story places the recommended treatment of earlier drug intervention in the context of the treatments’ known side effects, which can be very serious. The story should have described the severity of those side effects. We give this a satisfactory score, but barely. The report is based on a study presented at a major medical meeting. The story should have mentioned the fact that it has not been published or peer-reviewed. It should also have pointed out that it was a retrospective cohort study, which is considered to be less conclusive than prospective, double-blind studies. It should also have pointed out, as the NIH press release does, that a clinical trial is needed to validate the results in a way that would call for changing the current guidelines. These failures to provide caveats and context earn the story an ""unsatisfactory"" rating under this criterion. The story does not exaggerate the gravity or prevalance of AIDS. The story quotes Anthony Fauci, one of the best-known and -respected experts in the field of HIV/AIDS. The story also quotes the study’s lead investigator, and the author of AIDS treatment guidelines. That source’s link to companies that make AIDS drugs is properly noted. The story also quotes an independent clinician familiar with the guidelines and the current research. The story plainly compares the current guidelines with the regimen tested. The story explains that the drug combinations used by AIDS patients have been widely used since the mid-1990s. No claims are made for the novelty of the drug treatment. The recommendation to treat earlier is presented not as novel, but as a plan under consideration and study for quite some time. The story does not draw excessively on the NIH press release."
Example Output:
AIDS treatment should be started sooner, study says