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.

Ex Input:
The verdict in the lawsuit brought by the California woman, Eva Echeverria, marks the largest sum awarded in a series of talcum powder lawsuit verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in courts around the U.S. Echeverria alleged Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers about talcum powder’s potential cancer risks. She used the company’s baby powder on a daily basis beginning in the 1950s until 2016 and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, according to court papers. Echeverria developed ovarian cancer as a “proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder,” she said in her lawsuit. Echeverria’s attorney, Mark Robinson, said his client is undergoing cancer treatment while hospitalized and told him she hoped the verdict would lead Johnson & Johnson to put additional warnings on its products. “Mrs. Echeverria is dying from this ovarian cancer and she said to me all she wanted to do was to help the other women throughout the whole country who have ovarian cancer for using Johnson & Johnson for 20 and 30 years,” Robinson said. “She really didn’t want sympathy,” he added. “She just wanted to get a message out to help these other women.” The jury’s award included $68 million in compensatory damages and $340 million in punitive damages, Robinson said. The evidence in the case included internal documents from several decades that “showed the jury that Johnson & Johnson knew about the risks of talc and ovarian cancer,” Robinson said. “Johnson & Johnson had many warning bells over a 30 year period but failed to warn the women who were buying its product,” he said. Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement that the company will appeal the jury’s decision. She says while the company sympathizes with women suffering from ovarian cancer that scientific evidence supports the safety of Johnson’s baby powder. The verdict came after a St. Louis, Missouri jury in May awarded $110.5 million to a Virginia woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. She had blamed her illness on her use of the company’s talcum powder-containing products for more than 40 years. Besides that case, three other trials in St. Louis had similar outcomes last year — with juries awarding damages of $72 million, $70.1 million and $55 million, for a combined total of $307.6 million. Another St. Louis jury in March rejected the claims of a Tennessee woman with ovarian and uterine cancer who blamed talcum powder for her cancers. Two similar cases in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said the plaintiffs’ lawyers did not presented reliable evidence linking talc to ovarian cancer. More than 1,000 other people have filed similar lawsuits. Some who won their lawsuits won much lower amounts, illustrating how juries have wide latitude in awarding monetary damages. Johnson & Johnson is preparing to defend itself and its baby powder at upcoming trials in the U.S., Goodrich said. ___ Associated Press writer Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report. ___ Follow Michael Balsamo on Twitter at http://twitter.com/MikeBalsamo1 .

Ex Output:
Record $417M award in lawsuit linking baby powder to cancer.


Ex Input:
The story did not discuss the costs of PSA tests or provide estimates of the costs for following up an increase in PSA with a biopsy. These are significant cost issues, which warranted at least a line in the story. The story didn’t quantify the potential reduction in biopsies. The competing AP story was much better on this point, reporting that using rising PSA levels, 1 in 7 men would have a prostate biopsy as compared with 1 in 20 men based solely on high PSA level. This suggests that change in PSA level results in 13/20 unnecessary prostate biopsies. The story could have provided more detail on some of the possible complications resulting from prostate biopsies. It did mention anxiety from tracking PSA levels over time.

Ex Output:
Rapid Rise in PSA Levels a Poor Predictor of Prostate Cancer: Study


Ex Input:
The study published Monday in the journal Health Affairs found problems even with apps considered to be among the highest-quality offerings on the market. There’s been a proliferation of health apps for mobile phones. According to the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, there are more than 165,000 health apps out there. “The state of health apps is even worse than we thought,” said Dr. James Madara, chief executive of the American Medical Association, who was not involved in the study. This wasn’t a survey of step-counting fitness apps. The research team reviewed 137 apps designed for patients with serious ongoing health problems, including asthma, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and depression. The health apps, for example, help those with diabetes track and record every blood sugar reading and insulin injection. One invites users to photograph their moles, and offers analysis on whether they are changing in a way that signals skin cancer. The study suggests that, though some apps are good, there are problems. Perhaps most concerning was what happened when doctor reviewers entered information that should have drawn warnings from the app — like selecting “yes” when the app asked if the user was feeling suicidal, or entering extremely abnormal levels for blood sugar levels. Only 28 of 121 apps responded appropriately to such red-flag information, researchers said. Health apps “should have some common-sense standards” said lead author Dr. Karandeep Singh, a University of Michigan internist. “The vast majority of apps do not have any kind of response.” Another issue is the safeguarding of medical privacy. While patients commonly enter health information into apps, a lot of the information is shared through insecure methods like text message or emailing, the researchers said. The reviewed apps came from Apple iTunes and Google Play app stores — most of them free. Each app was reviewed by a doctor and a tech expert. The researchers named most of the apps but didn’t publish their reviews. Instead, they shared them with the app companies. Singh said they were interested in “identifying gaps that need to be filled” instead of naming winners and losers. Overall, the industry needs to do more work to improve safety and privacy, he said. And patients need to go beyond consumer ratings on websites before depending on apps to make crucial decisions about their health. Health apps face a limited amount of regulation. For example, the Food and Drug Administration does not require premarket review for most apps, though it can require a developer to remove apps under certain circumstances. The AMA’s Madara said the doctors organization has been working with others to form a group to look at health apps and standards. “It’s the Wild West out there,” he said.

Ex Output:

Many smartphone health apps don’t flag danger, says review.