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: The question of cost is cited in the final line of the story, which suggests that the scoring system can “address escalating health care cost issues.” But we didn’t think that was specific enough to warrant a Satisfactory score. The story doesn’t clue readers in to the fact that the financial burden can be measured in billions of dollars — a single screening test recommended for millions of Americans can cost thousands of dollars apiece. The other cost issue specific to this test is that it takes valuable time for providers to retrieve a reputable risk calculator when sitting with a patient and enter in the specific data points, including in this case waist circumference, which clinicians often do not measure as a ‘vital sign’ per se. The story cites a study that credits colonoscopy with reducing the risk of death from colon cancer by about 50 percent, by removing polyps. It would have been helpful for the story to explain what that relative reduction in risk means in absolute terms (e.g. did the rate of cancer death go from 50% to 25% or from 2% to around 1%?) The story also notes that the study found that patients with a low to intermediate risk score “still have a risk between of between 1.9 percent to 9.9 percent of harboring a polyp that can develop into cancer.” We’ll give credit here for the story’s provision of these key statistics, which do give a sense as how well the test accurately identifies truly low-risk individuals. However, we’d note that the benefit here should ideally refer to the ability of the algorithm to classify people at all risk levels (including high-risk), and therefore target the highest-risk patients for colonoscopy. The story doesn’t really get into discussion of the predictive power of the test, referred to as a likelihood ratio, which is in the study manuscript. However, this is a difficult concept for most health care providers and patients, and we think it’s understandable that the story did not include a full discussion of this topic. The harm of a screening test such as this really is “getting it wrong” in terms of predicting someone to be at low risk and finding them to have a higher risk polyp or malignancy. As noted above, the story cautions that “low- to intermediate-risk patients still have a risk between of between 1.9 percent to 9.9 percent of harboring a polyp that can develop into cancer.” This story accurately explains that the research was about predictive modeling, and explains the components of the risk score as well as the study design. There are some cautionary notes in the text, including a statement from outside expert that “the data from this study is not strong enough to spur any changes in current screening recommendations,” an opinion shared by an editorialist on the study. We think this is sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story does not hype the incidence or seriousness of the disease. The prevalence statistics cited are consistent with these National Cancer Institute figures. The story contains two independent voices. The perspective they provide is a particular strength of the article. We wish that more stories would reach out to experts not affiliated with the studies being reported on for context. The story notes that a variety of screening tests exist, but the relevant alternative here is actually other risk calculators, which the authors of the study describe and cite but are not routinely used. The story doesn’t mention these other calculators and why they are seldom used — context that would have deepened reader understanding of the issue. Although availability isn’t explicitly addressed, this risk calculator is now available (implicitly) by virtue of publication of the paper. It is a simple scoring system that can be implemented based on the information in the paper, and the story makes this clear. We’ll rate this Satisfactory. The story makes it sound as if this is a first-of-its-kind tool. However, risk calculation tools for colon cancer have been in circulation for many years. We could not find a news release related to this study. But in any case, the comments from two independent experts assure us that the story wasn’t based on a news release.
Example Output: 'Scoring System' May Spot Those in Greatest Need of Colonoscopy; But one expert cautions that even 'low risk' patients can still develop suspicious polyps

Example Input: Two doctors and a hospital administrator have died and at least 51 staff members have been infected since the new coronavirus was detected at the IMSS General Hospital in Monclova in the northern state of Coahuila in late March, the state health department said. The hospital became Mexico’s first hot spot for the COVID-19 illness caused by the coronavirus. At least four of the infected workers are currently hospitalized as a result of the outbreak, which has fed concerns that Mexico’s underfunded healthcare system is ill prepared to cope with a major epidemic in the nation of nearly 130 million people. At the beginning of the outbreak, managers “said that protective equipment wasn’t necessary,” said nurse Charly Escobedo Gonzalez who works at the Monclova hospital. Answering questions from Reuters about the reports that hospital management told staff not to wear masks, a senior official at Mexico’s main public health service IMSS which runs the hospital said that the health workers should be believed, but he did not confirm details of the reports. “Specifically, if they are saying that then of course we have to believe it,” said the IMSS official, Raul Pena Viveros. He said there can be misunderstandings inside a hospital about where it is appropriate to wear protective equipment. “Not all of the workers have to wear the same equipment inside the hospital. And when this type of equipment is used badly...it runs out more quickly and they put workers who are in contact with patients at risk,” he said. Mexico has registered 4,661 people with the coronavirus and 296 deaths, a fraction of the figures in the neighboring United States, but the coronavirus arrived weeks later in the Latin American country. The Monclova hospital became a coronavirus focal point in the third week of March, highlighting a lack of masks and even soap and bleach there, staff said. As staff began to fall ill, hospital floor managers instructed healthcare workers not to use facemasks, which some had bought for themselves due to the lack of hospital equipment, seven workers told Reuters. Pena Viveros said the hospital had been short of protective equipment as well as other materials to fight the coronavirus in March. Health officials have not given a detailed explanation of why so many Monclova healthcare workers became infected. Hospital workers are at greater risk of contracting the coronavirus if they do not wear protective equipment like facemasks and gloves. The N95 respiratory masks offer more protection from other people who are infected while more simple surgical masks help the wearer avoid spreading the virus. Due to a lack of proper N95 masks, some staff at the hospital were also wearing inappropriate industrial-style masks that were donated to them, Pena Viveros said. The lack of N95 masks was later resolved, said Pena Viveros, who was sent by the head of the IMSS from Mexico City to investigate the Monclova hospital and spent a week there in early April. Staff say the hospital has more protective equipment now but that they still lack gear such as masks. Three nurses said that while some colleagues chose not to wear facemasks after being told by managers or supervisors that they were not necessary, other staff kept wearing them. On the night of March 22, one of the heads of the nursing staff told a group of doctors and nurses gathered in the emergency room to take off their N95 masks because they were not necessary, according to a nurse who heard the order. Another nurse, surnamed Hernandez Perez, was given a similar order by a deputy head of nursing a few days earlier. “In a morning clinical class, the sub-head told us not to create panic...that we shouldn’t wear facemasks because we were going to create a psychosis,” said Hernandez Perez, who did not want her full name used. She is now at home sick and has tested positive for the COVID-19 respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus. A second nurse confirmed Hernandez Perez’s account. Reuters was unable to speak to two of the nursing managers who nurses say spoke at that meeting. After media accusations that the Monclova hospital badly lacked equipment to deal with the virus, the head of the IMSS, Zoe Robledo, announced in early April that the director of the hospital had been temporarily replaced. Neither the suspended hospital manager, Ulises Mendoza, nor the current hospital director answered repeated requests from Reuters for comment. One nurse, who asked that her name not be used for fear of retaliation, said that during the second half of March she was repeatedly told by superiors not to wear a facemask while working in high-risk areas such as on the ground floor of the hospital, where the emergency room is located. As well as the 51 confirmed cases, Pena Viveros said more than 300 other workers were temporarily sent home as the hospital scrambled to contain the outbreak. He said the hospital contracted nurses and doctors from other facilities to address the personnel shortage, nevertheless the hospital’s ability to care for patients has been impeded, some staff said.
Example Output: Exclusive: Nurses at Mexico hospital hit by coronavirus say they were told to avoid masks.

Example Input: Ivory Coast, which neighbors two of the three countries where Ebola killed more than 11,300 people since December 2013, lifted its ban on wild animal meat this month. The meat of squirrel, deer, fruit bats and rats has long been a key source of protein for many in the region, but it is also a potential source of the Ebola virus. Though bushmeat hasn’t officially been linked to West Africa’s recent Ebola outbreak, the deadliest in history, infections in Africa have been associated with hunting, butchering and processing meat from infected animals, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. The Ebola virus is then spread through direct contact with the bodily fluids of victims or corpses. “From a public health standpoint, this decision is unfortunate at best,” said Ben Neuman, a virologist at Texas A&M University-Texarkana. “The only source of Ebola in the world is infected animals, and there’s good evidence that some of these animals, like bats, can be infected for a long time.” However, not all bushmeat is equal, he said. Bats pass on the virus and travel far. Some types of rodents can get the virus. Primate meat is likely not as much of a danger, given that they succumb to Ebola more quickly than people. “There’s a good case for banning the sale of bats as bushmeat. The other sources are a lesser risk,” Neuman said. “I don’t want to see it all legal, but we don’t want to see people go hungry, either.” Ivory Coast, Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Ghana all warned against, or banned, the sale of bushmeat in 2014 as the outbreak emerged. They began rolling back those restrictions after the World Health Organization said in March that Ebola was no longer an international health emergency. Many in the countries are happy that they can now enjoy the meat they have always relied on. Some believe it is tastier than imported meats or chicken, and it’s often cheaper. “We weren’t happy that the government banned us from eating bushmeat these past two years. But we did what we were told because of Ebola,” said Lucien Douhan while shopping for bushmeat in the Yopougon suburb of Abidjan. In the teeming open-air markets, vendors handled the stiffened meat in recognizable animal form. Bat wings competed for space on worn wooden tables with other meat, some tails and claws still attached. Flies buzzed. A machete hacked. Those who sell the meat say they have been through hard times. “We couldn’t afford for our kids to go to school. It was hard for us. We had to sell frogs so the kids could eat, and we sold snails too,” said Brigitte Gahie. “But today, thanks be to God, the meat is back and the people are coming back.” In Guinea, bushmeat sales are still illegal, said Mohamed Tall, the minister of livestock and animal production there. Despite the ban, people still consume it. “We ate it before Ebola. We eat it after Ebola. Nothing can stop me from eating it,” said Marcel Yombouno in Guinea. Liberia issued a warning against the consumption of bushmeat during Ebola, but now the meat is being sold openly. In Sierra Leone, a bushmeat ban has been lifted. Ebola first appeared in 1976 in Congo and has caused periodic outbreaks there and in other African countries. Its re-emergence is likely, said Neuman, given the densely populated areas where Ebola has occurred. “Ebola will come again,” he said. “Hopefully we will be ready this time.” ___ Petesch reported from Dakar, Senegal; AP writers Boubacar Diallo in Conakry, Guinea; Clarence Roy-Macaulay in Freetown, Sierra Leone and Jonathan Paye-Layleh in Monrovia, Liberia contributed to this report.
Example Output:
Post-Ebola, West Africans flock back to bushmeat, with risk.