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 story does a good job of pointing out one advantage of the pill approach compared to delivery via colonoscopy–the reduced cost. “There was a significant difference in cost. Though the procedures were done in a Canadian hospital, the FMTs delivered by colonoscopy cost nearly $500 USD more than the capsules, which cost about $300.” This was a close call. Early on, it says the pill was 90% effective for treating recurrent Clostridium difficile infections. Later on, the story explains that both were equally successful in treating the Clostridium difficile infections. It would take a bit of deduction to figure out that the 90% treatment rate applies to both the pills and colonoscopies. And the study puts this figure close to 96%. But we’ll give the benefit of the doubt and rate it satisfactory. The story gets a satisfactory here for including the differences between the two methods of delivery: One source is quoted saying, “colonoscopies and the anesthesia required for the procedure can put a lot of stress on a person’s body and can be complicated for the people most at risk for C. difficile infections.”  It could have gone a step further and reminded readers that a colonoscopy is an invasive procedure with the inherent risks of infection and perforation that obviously aren’t there when taking a pill. The story did not mention the other adverse events described in the paper such as nausea and vomiting, though. The story comments on the size of the study and quotes a researcher about strengths (a randomized, controlled trial) and limitations (selection bias) of the study. Selection bias, in this case, means many people were excluded from the clinical trial if they had any number of issues (patients with severe or complicated cases were excluded, for example), potentially biasing the results. In a more real-world setting, the effectiveness rate may drop once it’s tried on a wider range of people. No disease mongering here. The story does include comments from an independent source unaffiliated with the research. But, it doesn’t specify that the source has received research money from a drug company that’s developing microbiome drugs. Standard treatment for C. diff is antibiotics. This should have been mentioned. Unfortunately, the story doesn’t spell out whether the pill form FMT is now, or soon will be, available to the public. The story does mention that numerous other clinical trials are using FMT as a possible treatment for various diseases but it is unclear whether the pill form is an option for physicians at this point. What’s new here is that a pill form for delivery of a fecal transplant is being tested against a colonoscopy. The story established this. It does not appear to rely on a news release.

Ex Output:
Fecal transplant via a pill? Newsweek’s coverage points out possible selection bias of study participants


Ex Input:
The justices did not comment in refusing to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law. Enforcement of the law had been on hold pending the legal challenge but will begin shortly, said Steve Pitt, general counsel to Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin. The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the law on behalf of Kentucky’s lone remaining abortion clinic. The ACLU argued that “display and describe” ultrasound laws violate physicians’ speech rights under the First Amendment. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the Kentucky law, but its sister court in Richmond, Virginia, struck down a similar measure in North Carolina. The Supreme Court had previously upheld “informed consent” laws for women seeking abortions. The court will hear an abortion case in March, over Louisiana’s attempt to require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Doctors’ speech also has been an issue in non-abortion cases. The federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down parts of a 2011 Florida law that sought to prohibit doctors from talking about gun safety with their patients. Under the law, doctors faced fines and the possible loss of their medical licenses for discussing guns with patients. In Kentucky, doctors must describe the ultrasound in detail while the pregnant woman listens to the fetal heartbeat. Women can avert their eyes and cover their ears to avoid hearing the description or the fetal heartbeat. Doctors failing to comply face fines and can be referred to the state’s medical licensing board. The ACLU called the law unconstitutional and unethical. ACLU lawyer Alexa Kolbi-Molinas said that the Supreme Court “has rubber-stamped extreme political interference in the doctor-patient relationship.” Pitt painted a different picture of the law. “It’s a five-minute procedure that takes place before the abortion is performed to give women who might have a lack of understanding of what’s actually in the womb, that this is a real living human being there, they might change their mind,” he said. The high court’s decision not to review the ultrasound case came on Bevin’s final day in office. Bevin, a Republican, is an outspoken abortion opponent. During his term, he signed a series of measures passed by the GOP-led legislature that put limits and conditions on abortion, including the 2017 ultrasound law. Those laws have triggered several legal challenges. Bevin was defeated in last month’s election by Democratic Attorney General Andy Beshear, but Republicans remain in control of the state legislature. ___ Associated Press writer Bruce Schreiner contributed to this report from Frankfort, Ky.

Ex Output:
Supreme Court leaves Kentucky’s ultrasound law in place.


Ex Input:
The review, posted on the FDA’s website on Monday, comes two days ahead of a meeting of outside medical experts who are expected to recommend whether it should be approved. The FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels. The drug, which would be sold under the brand name Zontivity, is designed to prevent heart-related deaths, cardiac arrests and strokes in patients who have had a recent heart attack. It would not be recommended for patients who have previously had a stroke because of an increased risk of bleeding in the brain. Results from a trial known as TRA 2P “are sufficient to establish the effectiveness of vorapaxar for its proposed indication,” the review found. The main safety concern with the drug is bleeding, the review found, though it noted that the rate of fatal bleeding was low in the population for whom the drug is proposed. The FDA did not recommend that the company establish a risk management program, nor did it recommend that the company conduct additional trials following approval. Vorapaxar works by preventing blood cells, known as platelets, from clumping together and forming clots in the arteries, which can lead to heart attacks. Other anti-platelets include aspirin and Plavix, which is made by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Merck’s drug works in a different way, by inhibiting a receptor known as PAR-1. Each year about 525,000 Americans have heart attacks and about 190,000 have a second heart-related event, according to Merck. Standard therapy to prevent a second episode often includes treatment with aspirin and Plavix. Voraxapar would be given in addition to standard treatment. During clinical trials, safety monitors found that patients who had previously had a stroke were at higher risk of bleeding in the brain and were instructed to stop taking the drug. Merck then focused its analysis on patients who had had a heart attack but no stroke. Merck’s shares rose 2.7 percent to $51.21 in early trading, helped also by news it had initiated its application to market a drug for patients with advanced melanoma. The company also said it is pursuing strategic options for its animal health and consumer businesses and expects to complete any action this year.

Ex Output:

Merck's anti-blood clot drug should be approved: FDA review.