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: File photo shows a young carer holding the hands of an elderly woman in a residential home for the elderly in Planegg near Munich June 19, 2007. REUTERS/Michaela Rehle The study, reported on Sunday in the journal BioMed Central BMC Neurology, involved 12 patients who had greatly improved language recall shortly after treatment with Enbrel, or etanercept, an anti-inflammatory drug co-marketed by Amgen and Wyeth. “We often see verbal effects within a few minutes of the first dose,” said Dr. Edward Tobinick, director of the Institute for Neurological Research, a private medical group inc., in Los Angeles, who led the study. Tobinick invented and holds several patents on a special method of injecting the drug into the neck. He said he charges anywhere between $10,000 and $40,000 per patient for the treatments. In January, Tobinick’s report on a single patient, and release of a striking video, drew the attention of the Alzheimer’s Association, which released a statement expressing concern. “People with Alzheimer’s and their families may place undue value on this new finding based on the dramatic language used in its description and the apparent immediate effect,” the group said. “We need to see work in other laboratories by scientists without financial interest in the product,” it added. Dr. Sam Gandy, chairman of the Alzheimer’s Association’s medical and science council, said the latest study, done at Tobinick’s clinic, does not offer that independent confirmation. “It’s still not a proper trial,” Gandy said. Tobinick believes the drug may work in the brain by blocking an excess of tumor necrosis factor-alpha or TNF-alpha, which may affect communication in the brain. The study looked at language difficulties, such as in finding words, in 12 patients with mild-to-severe Alzheimer’s disease who were administered etanercept weekly for six months. “There was a significant improvement in the majority of the verbal measures that were studied. The remainder showed a tendency toward improvement, which was not significant,” Tobinick said in a telephone interview. He said the study provides evidence that “excess TNF, in the Alzheimer brain, may offer a new way to address this language dysfunction.”   Tobinick acknowledged the study is limited because people knew they were getting the drug. Alzheimer’s patients in such open-label studies often show improvement. “Placebo effect is an enormous problem in open-label studies,” said Dr. Scott Turner, incoming director of the Memory Disorders Program at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington. Turner said the true test must come from a more scientifically rigorous double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. In such studies, patients receive either a dummy treatment or an active agent, and neither the doctor nor the patient knows which. Amgen has also expressed concern about the research, claiming there has been insufficient evidence so far. “This off-label, unapproved treatment, administered by Dr. Edward Tobinick, is not supported nor endorsed by Amgen,” the company said in April on its Web site. A video showing one woman's response to the drug in a sister study can be found at : here

Output: Drug restores speech in Alzheimer's; experts worry.


Input: Consider Input: "The article doesn't mention costs of angioplasty or costs of medications, which presumably must be taken for the rest of one's life. The article does mention that angioplasty is expensive, but does not provide real numbers or comparisons. The story provides absolute numbers of the primary endpoint over a 4-year period — ""17 percent of those given angioplasty and drugs and nearly 16 percent of those given drugs alone had either died, suffered another heart attack or developed heart failure — results considered to be statistically the same."" The story states that there was a worrisome trend toward more heart attacks in people who received late angioplasty compared to those who received just medications, although the story also tells readers that this could have been a statistical fluke or due to chance. However, other harms of the procedure were not discussed, including risks of the procedure itself, including bleeding, infection, or emotional distress/anxiety. The article also does not discuss risks of the alternative, e.g. medications, which have side effects, costs, or inconvenience. But, the story does discuss the main harm found in the study, e.g. a trend toward increased heart attacks. The research is important because it is a randomized controlled trial and the first such trial to be conducted for the clinical situation of late angioplasty in people with few to no symptoms after their heart attack. The story tells readers that enrollment of patients was delayed because ""doctors were unwilling to risk randomly assigning patients to drug treatment alone,"" indirectly stating that the study was a randomized trial. While an astute reader could probably pick up that this was a randomized trial, this fact could have been clearer. In addition, there is little context around this being the first randomized trial for this clinical situation (as opposed to retrospective observational studies), although the story does tell readers that the results were surprising and that they could change guidelines. The story appropriately describes a heart attack, and more importantly, reinforces that early opening of the artery to restore blood flow to the heart after heart attack is still beneficial and that these results don't apply to that population or indeed the majority of people receiving angioplasties. No obvious disease mongering. The article provides an independent source of information from the chairman of the American Heart Association program committee that reviewed the research. The story also provides information from the director of the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but tells readers that this organization largely funded the research, therefore disclosing potential conflicts of interest. The story tells readers that the alternative that was tested in the latest research was medications, including those to lower blood pressure and cholesterol, aspirin, and anti-clotting drugs. The story could have mentioned beta-blockers specifically, since the protective effect of drug treatment may come from this family of drugs, although this is not yet proven. And the story could have been clearer about the course of treatment, e.g. that these medications are generally taken for the rest of one's life. The story tells readers that the usual treatment for people suffering a heart attack is angioplasty, even for a subset of people who weren't treated right away (the study population)/  The article also tells readers that the tendency to perform angioplasty electively (3 to 28 days after the event) was so strong, that recruitment to the study was prolonged in order to find enough patients (and their doctors) willing to participate in the study. It's widely understood that angioplasty and standard drug therapy after heart attack are not new. The article provides independent sources of information not included in the press release."

Output: Study says late angioplasty futile


Input: Consider Input: An early experiment of immunotherapy against melanoma may be too early to allow for a cost estimate. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for reporting: “In six of the 11 patients in the trial, the melanoma stopped progressing for 12 to 19 weeks. Another patient was declared in remission because his cancer ceased to spread and, after several months, disappeared altogether. Three years later, researchers continue to detect the presence of the cloned cells they infused into the patient” The story stated: “Currently, the T cells have limited staying power and often die off before their work is done. Doctors give them a boost by administering a growth factor called interleukin-2. But at high doses, it can cause dangerously low blood pressure, breathing problems, kidney failure and heart arrhythmias. Yee’s group showed that by choosing T cells more selectively, patients can get by with much lower doses of interleukin-2, making the treatment less toxic.” But we’re not told what side effects were observed in the 11 patients in the study. In reality the study originally involved a high dose (3 subjects) and low dose (8 subjects) IL-2 arm. The high dose arm was closed by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board prematurely due to unacceptable toxicity. The early, small, preliminary nature of the study was clear from the story. Steven Rosenberg’s comments at the end also gave perspective. No disease mongering at play here. Several independent sources were quoted. Brief reference was made to one patient having had 6 years of chemotherapy “only to have his melanoma return.” And Rosenberg’s comments at the end note a competing immunotherapy approach. But the story didn’t give readers a clear context of melanoma treatments, or of why and for whom immunotherapy would be tried, etc. We think it’s clear from the story that this is only an experimental approach right now. The relative novelty of this approach for melanoma was evident in the story. It’s clear that the story did not rely solely on a news release.


Output: Researchers report progress in cancer immunotherapy