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 Q]: The study evaluated the combined effect of six lifestyle habits on prostate cancer mortality. Those six factors were, as described in the journal article: “not currently smoking or quit 10 or more years ago, body mass index under 30 kg/m2, high vigorous physical activity, high intake of tomatoes and fatty fish, and low intake of processed meat.” It’s tough to put a price tag on those lifestyle choices. How much does “high vigorous physical activity” cost? How much does it cost to avoid eating processed meat? It would be easy to say this category doesn’t apply. But the release does address the issue, saying the study findings underscore “the ongoing need for more effective prevention measures and policies to increase exercise, improve diet quality and reduce tobacco use in our population….It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” Recognizing the need for policies that support these lifestyle changes is important — and addresses the cost issue in a meaningful way. This is where things get a little tricky. The research described in this journal article looked at data from two different studies: the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) and the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS). The HPFS tracked 42,701 men from 1986-2010. The PHS tracked 20,324 men from 1982-2010. The release (and journal article) explain that the researchers used the HPFS data to develop a “healthy lifestyle score,” and then applied that score to the men in the PHS to see if it predicted whether someone would contract a lethal form of prostate cancer. The researchers identified the number of lethal cases of prostate cancer in each group to calculate benefits. The release states: “Participants with 5 to 6 points [the highest scores] in the HPFS had a 68 percent decreased risk of lethal prostate cancer[,] and a 38 percent decreased risk was observed in the [PHS] for the same comparison.” Several points to make here. First, the ‘healthy’ group appeared to have been compared to the ‘least healthy’ group (score 0-1) and not all the other groups combined. This was noted in the published results but not mentioned in the release. That’s important. Second, the release does not note (but the journal article does) that the 38 percent decreased risk seen in the PHS was not found to be statistically significant. That’s also an important distinction. Third, this is the relative reduced risk, and doesn’t tell readers what the actual, absolute reduction of risk is. The release doesn’t address harms. But the lifestyle choices at issue here are (for the most part) so broadly defined that it would be difficult to say what the harms would be. What harms are associated with eating tomatoes, avoiding processed meats, or not smoking? We’ll rate this one not applicable. The release does a good job of explaining what is a somewhat complicated study design. The study is basically an analysis of data drawn from two large, previous studies — and the release describes the overall sample size, age range, and length of those two studies. But the language used to describe the results is inappropriate. Since this was an analysis of observational study data that’s unable to prove cause and effect, it’s misleading to use active verbs to describe the results. The release does this in several places: It’s more appropriate to state that these habits were “associated with” reduced risk — not that the habits “save lives” or “cut” risk. Another thing that’s not clearly explained to readers (as noted above) is what it means to develop a lifestyle scoring system based on one study’s data set, and then apply that scoring system to a second data set, when the results section is provided for both data sets. It’s confusing. We’d encourage public affairs specialists preparing news releases and reporters using them as their initial sources to focus more on the limitations of this type of research. Sometimes referred to as “data dredging,” it’s basically finding statistically significant results only by chance. In this case it’s a statistic of a statistic (up to 47% of cancer cases could be prevented with these lifestyle interventions). No disease mongering here. Funding sources were clearly identified, and there are no clear conflicts of interest. Things get tricky again here. As the release notes, most prostate cancers don’t metastasize and aren’t life threatening. But some do metastasize and can be fatal. Are there different types of prostate cancer, just like there are different types of flu? Are there genetic factors that affect risk? Readers would have benefited from that information. And we suppose that the release could have also mentioned other dietary or lifestyle factors that might help reduce risk that were not considered in the paper. However, the range of healthy behaviors discussed here is pretty broad, and it seems excessive to expect the release to address an entire laundry list of possibilities. We’ll give this a Satisfactory rating. The study was limited to a relatively high level income group and the interventions may not be attainable for all men, in all socioeconomic groups. Does partaking of vigorous physical exercise on a regular basis require access to a gym or just a high degree of motivation? Are tomatoes and fish attainable year round for all socioeconomic groups? The study addresses this to some extent when it says, “It takes co-operation and effort from multiple areas, like insurance companies, employers, policy makers and city planners, to figure out how to creatively support and encourage more exercise into most busy adults’ working day.” We’ll award a Satisfactory here. There are a lot — a lot — of papers out there on lifestyle choices and prostate cancer. In fact, the opening sentences in the abstract for the journal article says as much, while articulating what sets this research apart: “Several lifestyle factors have been associated with risk of lethal prostate cancer, but little is known about their combined effect. Our objective was to develop and apply a lifestyle score for prevention of lethal prostate cancer.” However, the release does not acknowledge all of the existing work on lifestyle and prostate cancer, and therefore fails to highlight how this paper fits into that broad body of work. Apart from the cause-and-effect statements addressed above, there is no unjustifiable language used here.
[EX A]: Working up a sweat may protect men from lethal prostate cancer

[EX Q]: The Hall of Fame rocker, who has been an advocate for teen cancer patients for nearly three decades, visited with children, young adults and their families at Rainbow Babies Hospital on Monday. The Who’s front man toured the Angie Fowler Adolescent & Young Adult Cancer Institute, which was founded in 2012 to better serve young patients while they undergo cancer treatments and following their release. “Teenagers for so long have been overlooked,” said the 73-year-old, still on the road with longtime bandmate Pete Townshend. “Not nearly enough has been done for them.” For years, teenage cancer patients were hospitalized on pediatric floors or placed with older patients. After consulting with doctors researching treatments and recovery, Daltrey understood the need for teens to have a place of their own, where they could recover in surroundings more suited to their interests and maturity level. “The light went on in my head with this one,” said Daltrey, who first got involved with the Teenage Cancer Trust in 1989. “I was in the Who when I was 18 years old and without the support of this age group — adolescents and young adults — our business wouldn’t be there. The music business is built mostly with this age group. It’s an easy way for me to say, ‘Thank you.’” During his visit, Daltrey, whose iconic voice helped make Who songs such as “My Generation,” ″Behind Blue Eyes” and “Won’t Get Fooled Again” anthems for generations of fans, spent time with young cancer patients who have benefited from their time in facilities like the one at Rainbow Babies Hospital. Daltrey quickly connected with several of the teens, who eagerly shared stories of being diagnosed and lengthy hospital stays. He had a warm word, hug or handshake for each of them and was happy to pose for photos. For Adam Kirk, Daltrey’s visit was a chance to meet a rock hero. The 40-year-old’s daughter, Sawyer, has been fighting leukemia for months and Daltrey’s face lit up when he saw the 1½-year-old being carried toward him. Kirk came prepared for his meeting, getting Daltrey to sign a well-worn copy of “Who’s Next,” regarded as the band’s signature album. As he made his way around an outdoor, rooftop garden, Daltrey was approached by another dad who wanted to show his appreciation for the singer’s charitable work. Tyson Stiles presented Daltrey with a musical gift. While his son, Ryver, spent nearly 300 days in the hospital after being born prematurely, Stiles recorded a short album that included songs he wrote about his son’s ordeal. “I wanted you to have a copy,” Stiles said. “Is it any good?” Daltrey asked. “No, it’s terrible,” Stiles quipped as both men laughed. Later, Daltrey donated a guitar signed by him and Townshend that will be permanently displayed in the Fowler Institute’s in-patient unit. Daltrey also shared memories of his previous visits to Cleveland. He and the Who first came to town in 1967. “It’s a lot different than it used to be,” he said. “It was the dirtiest place I’d ever been to in my life. Everything was covered in soot. But Cleveland audiences were some of the best we ever played for.”
[EX A]: The Who’s Roger Daltrey visits teenage cancer patients.

[EX Q]: The company said the trial will continue unchanged as per the recommendation of a data monitoring committee. The trial was testing Bristol-Myers’ drugs Opdivo and Yervoy, against Opdivo alone, in patients with advanced melanoma. The combination failed to show a statistically significant benefit in patients whose tumors had 1% or lower levels of the PD-L1 protein being targeted, the company said. The American Cancer Society estimates that about 96,480 melanoma cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year. Bristol-Myers shares were trading at $55.99 before the bell.
[EX A]:
Bristol-Myers misses main goal of late-stage skin cancer trial.