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: According to the story, brand-name aromatase inhibitors cost between $340 and $420 a month, but the story also points out that lower-costing, generic versions are available in the U.S. It would have been useful had the story also provided cost information for the other preventive drug options, tamoxifen and raloxifene. A particular strength of this story is its presentation of data. Dr. Winer, an independent source included in the story, translates a 65% risk reduction to mean that exemestane may reduce a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer from 3% to 1%. Not only does the story provide absolute risk, but it also presents the number needed to treat. According to the study authors, 26 women would need to take exemestane for five years to prevent a single case of breast cancer. It should be noted, however, that few women in the study completed five years of therapy. Since this is being used as a preventive measure in healthy women, side effects are very important and data should have been provided. The story indicates that “slightly” more women taking exemastane experienced hot flashes, fatigue, sweating, insomnia, and joint pain, compared to those taking placebo pills. It would have been helpful to note, for example, that 40% in the exemestane group experienced a hot flash versus 32% in the placebo group. Citing older research, the story indicates that that joint pain, muscle aches, problems having sex, and vaginal dryness may be more evident with a longer duration of use. The story makes it clear that the study was a large-scale, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, which enrolled over 4500 women in North America and Europe. The women included had at least one risk factor for breast cancer. It also notes that given the significant risk reduction associated with exemestane, the study was stopped after 3 years to give women in the control arm the option of taking exemestane to prevent possible breast cancers. More information regarding participants’ characteristics, including age and race would have been helpful. This story did not engage in disease-mongering. In addition to including experts not affiliated with the exemestane study, the story also notes that the it was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the Avon Foundation, and Pfizer. In addition, the writer points out that the study lead and a few other authors have received speaking fees from Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies that make cancer drugs. This story compares the benefits and harms of exemestane with tamoxifen; however, a mention of how these compare with raloxifene, would have been useful. The availability of aromatase inhibitors is not in question. It’s clear from the story that aromatase inhibitors are currently used to prevent breast cancer recurrences. It’s also clear that this is the first study evaluating its utility for preventing the first instance of breast cancer in healthy women with a higher risk of developing the disease. The story does not appear to be based on the press release.

Output: Hormone-blocking drug reduces breast cancer risk


Input: Consider Input: So far, Somalia has reported only three cases. But if the disease is unleashed, it could spread like wildfire through camps housing malnourished families who huddle under makeshift domes built from sticks and rags. Many of the 2.4 million Somalis displaced by conflict and other disasters live in such camps. Out of a total population of 15 million, around six million Somalis may not have enough to eat this year, the United Nations says, weakening their immune systems and ability to survive the pandemic. Islamist al Shabaab insurgents also hold parts of southern Somalia, making it hard for health workers to visit and impossible to do testing there. “I have witnessed wars, cholera, dysentery,” Ahmed, tall and bespectacled, told Reuters. “A doctor who fears for his life cannot save people. I have learned to forget worrying and instead help rescue people.”  A decade ago, al Shabaab seized him as he was trying to stem a cholera epidemic in territory they held. They had seen a cross inside his ambulance and - wrongly assuming it meant he was a foreign spy - arrested him and his team. A phone call from a high-level contact saved their lives, he said. Right now, Somalia only has about 25 intensive care beds, 110 quarantine beds and 100 treatment beds available, Ahmed said. More are being built. In the capital, patients at the old Italian-built maternity Martini Hospital have been moved out to make way for a new coronavirus ward. The sound of hammering echoes through its wide, tree-lined compound as construction workers rush to finish repairs. The health ministry and prime minister’s office have allocated about $11 million for coronavirus preparation, Ahmed said. Expenses are high - all medical equipment is imported and coronavirus tests are sent to Kenya for processing. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has trained 500 health workers in Somalia since January, said Dr. Mamunur Rahman Malik, the organization’s country representative. The WHO also brought in personal protective equipment to handle the first 300 or 400 cases, Malik added. Ahmed’s biggest worry is that the disease may spread very fast. Somalia has a tradition of physical greetings, and even wealthy people are reluctant to quarantine away from family. Many, like Faduma Abdikadir, simply have nowhere to isolate themselves. The 38-year-old mother is sleeping under a tree in a makeshift camp in the capital Mogadishu with her eight children, having fled fighting in the countryside. “Most of the time we use ashes and sand to wash hands. We are hungry. We beg people to buy water to drink and wash our hands,” she said.

Output: Somali doctor, veteran of many battles, girds for war with coronavirus.


Input: Consider Input: The story reports that these scans typically cost $300-400 and are not generally covered by insurance. The story would have been better if it had clearly pointed out that the potentially huge cost of such a screening program, because hundreds of smokers had to be scanned to extend one life in this trial and follow-up tests and treatments cost much more than the initial scan. Nonetheless, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The New York Times never specified the scans’ costs. This story does a better job than some others in how it portrays the potential benefits of CT screening for lung cancer. The headline and lead report that deaths were reduced somewhat. The third paragraph of the story notes that among the 53,000 participants there were 20 percent fewer deaths among those offered CT scans compared to those offered chest x-rays, but that the “actual number of deaths averted was fairly modest” (354 in the CT group vs. 442 in the x-ray group). This way of presenting the results helps readers put the results in perspective. The story also notes that the National Cancer Institute said “it’s not clear that all smokers should get the scans.” However, the story could have made it more clear that the reduction in lung cancer death rates was seen after five years of folllow-up, which leaves open the question about whether that difference will persist over a longer time frame. It would have been helpful for this story to tell readers that 300 smokers had to be screened in this trial in order to extend the life of one of them. The story points out that such scans can produce false positive results, lead to further tests and treatments that don’t always benefit patients and have their own risks, and that CT scans expose people to radiation that may raise the risk of other types of cancer. It explains that the NCI is “still compiling the rates of false alarms and other risks” but estimates could have been drawn from past research. The story explains that 53,000 current or former smokers were given either CT scans or chest x-rays and that researchers tracked the number who died of lung cancer. However, readers may be confused by a reference to “the eight-year study period.” While it has been eight years since the trial began, the participants were followed for up to five years. Also, the story leads with a vague statement that this trial provides “the first evidence that a screening test may help fight the nation’s top cancer killer.” It would have been better for the story to be clear that this trial provides evidence about a difference in lung cancer death rates. The story could have done a better job of explaining that the randomization and other features of this trial set it above any other investigation of this topic. The story clearly states that this trial only involved people who are or were “very heavy smokers” and that it is not clear that the results are applicable to other smokers. There is no independent source quoted. (Please note: later versions of AP stories carried independent perspectives but we reviewed the first version we found.) This story highlights advice that quitting is the best way for smokers to avoid lung cancer. While this story does call the CT scans used in this trial “special” and different from conventional CT scans, it does not make clear that the trial applied rigorous standards to the equipment, operators and radiologists that may not be followed by other providers who offer CT scans to smokers. The story squeaks by this criterion. It mentions earlier trials that left key questions unresolved, but it does not clearly tell readers what was different about this trial. The only direct quote in the story is from a news release issued by the National Cancer Institute. (http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/NLSTresultsRelease) It is not clear what other sources may have been consulted.


Output: Special CT scans cut lung cancer deaths in major study, but questions remain about screening