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 YouTube video is real according to an  October 12, 2012 news article by ABC News Nightline. The article said, “Amanda Todd, 15, posted the video called ‘My story: Struggling, bullying, suicide, self harm’ on Sept. 7 and was found dead in her home town of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, just over a month later.”    The article also said that Todd had been coaxed by a stranger on the internet to flash her chest via webcam. After about a year of prompting by the stranger she eventually gave in and the events that followed escalated into a teen’s nightmare. A photo of the session was posted on the Internet and someone contact her though Facebook threatening her that if she did not “put on a show” that the photo would be released. The article went on to say, “Over Christmas break, Todd said police came to her house at 4 a.m. to tell her that the photo had been sent to everyone. ‘I then got really sick and got anxiety, major depression and panic disorders,’ she wrote. ‘I then moved and got into drugs and alcohol. '” The cyber-bullies followed her move to a new school in another city and eventually the attacks not only came from the Internet but also from her new classmates who prompted her to find another school. The article said that in the early evening of October 10th law enforcement were called to a home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, “to investigate the sudden death of the tormented teenager.”  Investigators found no evidence of foul play but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have yet to rule her death a suicide. updated 10/15/12 Comments
Example Output:  This is a YouTube video that is circulating the Internet allegedly by a 15 year old girl called Amanda Todd.   She tells how someone on the Internet coaxed her into flashing her chest in a webcam session and how the events that followed led to depression, addiction and her suicide. 

Example Input: The case, published in The Lancet medical journal, involved connecting veins from the donor uterus with the recipient’s veins, as well as linking arteries, ligaments and vaginal canals. It comes after 10 previously known cases of uterus transplants from deceased donors - in the United States, the Czech Republic and Turkey - failed to produce a live birth. The girl born in the Brazilian case was delivered via caesarean section at 35 weeks and three days, and weighed 2,550 grams (nearly 6 lbs), the case study said. Dani Ejzenberg, a doctor at Brazil’s Sao Paulo University hospital who led the research, said the transplant - carried out in September 2016 when the recipient was 32 - shows the technique is feasible and could offer women with uterine infertility access to a larger pool of potential donors. The current norm for receiving a womb transplant is that the organ would come from a live family member willing to donate it. “The numbers of people willing and committed to donate organs upon their own deaths are far larger than those of live donors, offering a much wider potential donor population,” Ejzenberg said in a statement about the results. She added, however, that the outcomes and effects of womb donations from live and deceased donors have yet to be compared, and said the technique could still be refined and optimized. The first baby born after a live donor womb transplant was in Sweden in 2013. Scientists have so far reported a total of 39 procedures of this kind, resulting in 11 live births. Experts estimate that infertility affects around 10 to 15 percent of couples of reproductive age worldwide. Of this group, around one in 500 women have uterine problems. Before uterus transplants became possible, the only options to have a child were adoption or surrogacy. In the Brazilian case, the recipient had been born without a uterus due to a condition called Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. The donor was 45 and died of a stroke. Five months after the transplant, Ejzenberg’s team wrote, the uterus showed no signs of rejection, ultrasound scans were normal, and the recipient was having regular menstruation. The woman’s previously fertilized and frozen eggs were implanted after seven months and 10 days later she was confirmed pregnant. At seven months and 20 days - when the case study report was submitted to The Lancet - the baby girl was continuing to breastfeed and weighed 7.2 kg (16 lb).
Example Output: World's first baby born via womb transplant from dead donor.

Example Input: Part of the caution in this story is not linking the research too closely to a potential on-the-shelf treatment. The story says in several ways that a drug therapy would be a good distance away. So we don’t think it appropriate to talk about costs at this point. The story does not break down the actual number of positive findings in either study, and we wish it had. It may be that the way in which the benefits were measured was hard to explain. But we still think the story should try to give readers some specifics. We want to know more than just that the beta cells performed “every bit as good as the body’s own cells.” The story makes a nod in the direction of harms when it notes that there was a minimal immune system response to the transplanted cells. An immune response is currently one of the harms that limits the usefulness of this procedure. But the story should have gone further to describe how the transplantation procedure is performed. This is an invasive approach that is not without risks and adverse effects. The story does a really nice job of quickly summarizing the state of the evidence and then going into more detail. It’s almost a blueprint for how these stories should be written. In just three sentences, it captures nearly all the relevant information about the evidence. It says, “In one of two related studies published Monday, Anderson and his colleagues described in the journal Nature Biotechnology how they had tested 774 variations of alginate in rodents and monkeys and identified a handful that elicited a greatly reduced foreign body response. For the other paper, published in Nature Medicine, the group embedded tiny capsules made from that durable alginate with beta cells derived from human embryonic stem cells. They then transplanted them into mice with a disease akin to type 1 diabetes.” Note: published in a respected journal, tested in animals (the story could have specified how many and acknowledged that these were animal studies higher up in the story), focused on a disease that’s not exactly diabetes but close. This should signal to readers that a cure for diabetes is still a long ways away. There is no disease mongering in the story. In fact, it does a nice job of explaining the disease and the specific problem this research is trying to address. It says, for example, “In people with type 1 diabetes, formerly known as juvenile-onset diabetes, the immune system dismantles the pancreatic cells that normally produce insulin. So researchers have long sought a way to put back healthy insulin-producing cells, known as beta cells, into patients.” Most of the sources are connected to the study, either from the research institutions involved or the funders. But we give the story points for taking the next step and talking to people in the pharmaceutical research world who would be among those actually taking a discovery like this and making it therapeutic. The story quotes someone from Semma and someone from VitaCyte, both of whom provide a good dose of realistic context. While ideally we would’ve heard from someone with no stake at all in this line of research, we think there are enough voices with enough distance from the studies to earn the story a Satisfactory rating. And to the article’s credit, the sources’ affiliations are all clearly stated. The story does contrast this research with other research into treating diabetes. The story might have provided a bit of context about other work on developing an artificial pancreas for Type 1 Diabetes patients (there’s a lot on this). The story at the top makes it clear that the treatment is not available, saying, “Scientists on Monday showed they had overcome some of the major hurdles standing in the way of a long-sought therapeutic fix for patients with type 1 diabetes, outlining an approach that the body’s immune system could tolerate and providing a possible pathway toward clinical trials in the next few years.” Not the qualifier of “possible” in that sentence. News stories often don’t address the novelty of a treatment or research finding. But this story actually uses the word “novel,” which sort of puts a spotlight on the category for us. The story quotes one of the study’s funders calling the protective cell bubbles studied in the research “novel materials.” We think the story actually does establish their novelty with enough context and caveats. The story does not rely on a news release.
Example Output:
Cell therapy in protective bubble offers hope for diabetes fix