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]: None of the stories we reviewed gave readers sufficient information on the cost of the research scans used in the study. This story includes a comment from a researcher saying that increased use of this type of brain scan would bring the “high cost” down, but it doesn’t provide an estimate of the current cost or any comparison to alternative methods of assessing reading ability or other features of dyslexia. We will give this story a satisfactory rating because it portrays this research as providing information for researchers seeking to understand dyslexia, rather than offering important direct benefits to individuals. However, most of the story is about what it is like to live with dyslexia. These anecdotes have little or nothing to do with the research. The list of celebrities who may have or had dyslexia also seems irrelevant and distracting. Then the story tosses in discussion of a study that looked at correlations between dyslexia and spatial skills; again, unrelated to the topic of the primary study reported here. The jumble of extraneous personal tales and other research muddles the point of the story. MRI brain scans are generally considered to present little physical risk, so the issue here is really the potential negative effects of the information the test produces. At least the story raises that issue by including comments from parents who worry that this sort of scanning could further stigmatize children who have trouble reading or writing. This story fails to point out that the “children” studied were not beginning readers, but teenagers who were already identified as having dyslexia and may have been involved in special reading programs for many years. It also fails to mention several of the caveats and limitations that the researchers noted in their journal article, including the possibility that misclassification of the participants based on their initial testing could affect the results. In other words, rather than actually improving during the study, it is possible some of the teens were actually better readers from the beginning, but just scored low on the baseline tests. Nevertheless, the story appropriately describes this study as helping researchers to understand the disease, rather than evaluating the clinical usefulness of brain scans. Also, one paragraph deep in the story highlights the preliminary nature of the research; specifically that the study included only 25 participants with dyslexia, “which is too small a sample size to prove anything.” It also notes that the study did not look at whether different varieties or reading instruction or other interventions might have had some effect and it includes a comment from an independent expert about the lack of data on instruction or other factors that could influence reading ability. The story would have been better if the alert to the preliminary nature of the study had been near the top, rather than buried near the end. The story refers to estimates that between 5 percent and 20 percent of the population has dyslexia. Unlike the Reuters story we also reviewed, this story provides a useful definition of dyslexia as “a condition that, broadly speaking, hinders a person’s ability to interpret language.”  The story does include independent experts. Although it does not discuss conflicts of interest, the authors of the main study declared no conflicts and reported that their study was supported by a number of grants from public agencies and foundations, though the baseline assessment of the participants was supported by a company that markets treatment interventions for people with dyslexia. One troubling point: the story describes one person who claims to have been helped by “training at a learning development center.” If this individual was associated with the company that helped sponsor this research, the story should have disclosed that connection. The study authors wrote that although standardized tests did not accurately predict changes in reading ability during the study period, “it is possible that there are behavioral measures not included here that may predict outcome.” Indeed, their journal article specifically referred to other research into clinical testing that did appear to predict how children with poor reading skills responded to teaching. The story fails to make clear that the study reported here did not attempt to make a comprehensive comparison of the predictive power of scans and other methods of assessing children with reading problems. The story notes that the type of scan used in this study is not widely available. The story implies that this study is the first to suggest young people with dyslexia use a certain area of the right hemisphere of their brains more than average readers. Actually, the study authors pointed out that their research provides some additional data to support the findings of many other studies of differences between the brains of people with dyslexia and those who read normally. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
[EX A]: Dyslexia: Scanning the brain for clues

[EX Q]: The story doesn’t mention cost at all. Since Lucentis can cost $2,000 per injection, that’s a significant oversight. It would also be useful to tell readers how Lucentis injections compare with the cost of laser treatment. The benefits are, for the most part, reasonably well explained. But those explanations lack numbers to back them up and are overstated in at least one place. “One benefit discussed in the release is that study participants who received laser treatment were more likely to suffer peripheral vision loss than participants who were treated solely with Lucentis — although this isn’t quantified. A second benefit was that participants who received laser treatment were more likely to require subsequent surgery to remove blood from the eye — and this was quantified. But the release pushes things a bit when it comes to vision, or visual acuity. The release states: “At two years, vision in the Lucentis group improved by an average of about half a line on an eye chart, compared with virtually no change in the laser group.” But here’s how the journal article puts it: “There was no statistically significant visual acuity difference between the ranibizumab and PRP [laser] groups at 2 years. The language in the journal article itself stresses that what was being evaluated was whether Lucentis was at least as good as laser treatment — and they found that, after two years, the visual acuity of patients who took Lucentis (and had no laser treatment) was as good as patients who had the laser treatment. The release could have simply stated this and avoided confusion. In short, this was a close one — but the lack of numbers on peripheral vision and the overstatement of the visual acuity results make this a “Not Satisfactory.” The release mentions that one study volunteer in the Lucentis group developed an eye infection and stated that “serious systemic adverse events,” namely cardiac arrest and stroke, occurred at similar rates among the two groups undergoing the two different procedures. We’ll rate that satisfactory for the disclosure although the release might have gone even further by mentioning the other side effects named in the study including inflammation and elevated intraocular pressure which occurred in both treatment groups. The release does a good job of describing the study design, the number of participants, and the fact that this was a randomized clinical trial. A few words about the limitations of the study — e.g. the investigators and patients could not be masked to which treatment they were getting, would have be useful as well. No disease mongering here. The release does tell readers that the study was funded by the National Eye Institute. However, it does not make clear that Lloyd Paul Aiello — who is quoted in the release — was also a co-author of the journal article. The release also fails to mention that several co-authors receive research funding or consulting fees from Genentech, which developed ranibizumab and markets it in the U.S., and Novartis, which markets the drug outside the U.S. The release does a good job of comparing Lucentis to conventional laser treatment for PDR and we’ll award a Satisfactory rating on that basis. However, we’d note that these are not necessarily the only two options. Lucentis is classed as an “anti-VEGF” (anti- vascular endothelial growth factor) drug — by blocking a protein called VEGF, the drug can reverse abnormal blood vessel growth and decrease fluid in the retina. Other drugs in this category include Avastin and Eylea. Are those drugs under consideration for trials related to PDR treatment? If so, it’s worth mentioning — particularly since Avastin costs around $60 per dose, as compared to Lucentis’s $2,000 per dose. The release notes that Lucentis is already used to treat other diabetes-related eye problems, and “should be considered a viable treatment option for people with PDR.” The clinical trial at issue here appears to be the first to look at the use of Lucentis as a treatment for PDR, particularly in a randomized study with direct comparison to laser treatment. However, the release doesn’t tell readers that. On the other hand, the release does make clear that this is the first significant advance in clinical treatment for PDR since the 1970s — that’s good context. The release does a good job of avoiding hype and explaining what was a complex study.
[EX A]: Lucentis Proves Effective Against Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

[EX Q]: "It wasn't that long ago that Cranston was facing an overwhelming bill for retirees and potential retirees, a crisis that prompted Mayor Allan Fung to seek concessions from the city's police and fire unions. The city was in trouble because, for years, its elected officials failed to invest enough money to cover the retirement benefits they were promising. So it caught our attention when Fung, who is running for governor as a Republican, sent out a letter with the city's new tax bills reporting that ""Our budget funds 100 percent of the local police and fire pension and other retiree benefits costs."" So is Cranston's pension problem fixed and up to speed? We decided to look at the numbers. Cranston actually has several pension plans. Police and fire workers hired over the past two decades, along with municipal employees, are covered by the state-run Municipal Employees' Retirement System. The state sets a percentage of payroll that municipalities in the MERS system must contribute to cover their costs. If the municipalities don’t pay up, the state withholds aid to make up the shortfall. For the current fiscal year, Cranston’s minimum was 13.69 percent of payroll; the city’s budget includes that amount -- about $4.8 million on the non-school side of the ledger. In other words, it’s paying 100 percent of the state-mandated MERS requirement. Then there’s the funding level, the percentage of what the plans need to meet their pension obligations. The city’s MERS plans are not funded exactly at 100 percent, but they're fairly close. According to the latest actuarial report, the city has 95.9 percent of the projected police retiree costs, 107.1 percent of the projected firefighter retiree costs, and 95.1 percent of all other municipal retiree costs. Any plan with a funded ratio below 80 percent is considered to be in trouble. However, the old police and fire pension programs, administered by the city, are a different story because, over the years, Cranston's elected officials neglected to put enough money into those programs to cover future retiree costs. Although they have been closed since 1995, the city would need an additional $231 million to fully fund them. (To put that amount in perspective, the city's entire budget for the current fiscal year is $262 million.) The old police pension is only 18.3 percent funded and the old fire pension program is just 24.1 percent funded, according to information from the city's latest actuarial report. They’re far from 100-percent funded. However, the city is now on a payment plan designed to wipe out that shortfall by 2042. (The date has been 2037, but a recent court settlement with the unions forced the date to be pushed back by five years.) Under that plan, the city should be paying $22,353,591 this year, according to the city's actuarial firm, Buck Consultants. Fung, in an email to PolitiFact Rhode Island, showed where the city's appropriation for this year will actually be $22,518 more than the recommended amount. To cover other benefits, primarily retiree health insurance, Buck recommended that the city budget $5.1 million. The city has set aside $4.6 million and plans to cover the remaining $500,000 by using about a third of its $1.6 million hospital stabilization account, which is savings accumulated because the city self-insures its workers. Fung, in an interview, said he didn't intend to leave the impression in his letter to taxpayers that the city had covered 100 percent of all its pension obligations. ""If I had meant that, I would have said it was 100 percent fully funded, which is not true."" Instead, he said his point was that, unlike in past years, the city is paying for 100 percent of its annual required contribution to solve its pension problems. We should note that Fung has not been shy about talking about the unfunded liability of the city's old pension systems, mentioning it in interviews and on other occasions. Our ruling Cranston Mayor Allan Fung said, ""Our budget funds 100 percent of the local police and fire pension and other retiree benefit costs."" The city is making the minimum required payments for retirement benefits through the state-run MERS system and to pay down this year's share of the bill for the huge long-term liability incurred by the city's older police and fire pension systems. But his statement could lead a reader to conclude that 100 percent of the city’s $231 million debt for the old plans is covered by this year's budget when, in fact, the only thing the city is paying in full is this year's installment on a plan that won't retire that debt for another 28 years. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at [email protected] And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)"
[EX A]:
"Cranston's 2014-2015 ""budget funds 100 percent of the local police and fire pension and other retiree benefit costs."