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 news release does not mention costs. While a new therapy may not have an established price, the release could have stated “no price is available for this drug.” What would be even better is some context for what women suffering from postpartum pay typically for counseling and medications. The release notes that  there was a reduction in depressive symptoms of 17 points for those on the drug, and 12.8 for those in the placebo group based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. The absolute reduction in the rating scale is given for each group. This information would have been much more helpful if the release also clarified the magnitude of the scale and whether a 4.2-point difference is clinically meaningful. The release contains one somewhat vague sentence on harms. The most common (≥10% of subjects) adverse events following during brexanolone injection administration were headache, dizziness and somnolence. Readers would also be interested in details on whether the drug is safe for nursing infants. That’s not mentioned. The double-blinded randomized trials are described in detail and readers are able to judge the quality of the evidence. The published study includes an important limitation of the research that’s not mentioned in the release: The trials assessed women for only 30 days; the effects of the treatment beyond 30 days are “unknown.” There is no disease mongering. The release explains how common postpartum depression is worldwide. The release notes that Sage Therapeutics funded the research. Sage Therapeutics is the developer of brexanolone injection and sponsor of the trials. A New Drug Application is currently under review by the FDA and brexanolone injection has been granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation. The FDA has assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of December 19, 2018. What the release doesn’t tell us is that both quoted researchers disclosed financial ties with Sage Therapeutics. This information was included in the studies published in the Lancet. SM-B reports personal fees from MedScape and grants from Sage Therapeutics, awarded to the University of North Carolina … DRR reports personal fees and has stock options in Sage Therapeutics…. The release mentions that women currently can receive antidepressants for postpartum depression, but that the new drug being studied goes to work relieving symptoms faster than traditional antidepressants — days rather than weeks. The release notes that the drug is currently under FDA review, with a decision on its approval expected by the end of the year. The release notes that the new drug would be a novel treatment for postpartum depression, if approved. There is no unjustifiable language.
Example Output: Newly Published Results Show Investigational Treatment Brexanolone Consistently Reduced Depressive Symptoms Across Three Postpartum Depression Trials, Supporting Submission for FDA Approval

Example Input: The N.C. Department of Health and Human Services said in a news release on Tuesday that it’s working with the Buncombe and Henderson County health departments to track down additional information. Legionella bacteria can become a health concern when they grow and spread in human-made water systems like hot water tanks, air conditioning systems and other sources that are not properly maintained. State Epidemiologist Dr. Zack Moore said it’s not yet known if people attending the fair might have been exposed to Legionella bacteria. Moore says people who attended the fair and are experiencing cough, fever or shortness of breath should call their health care provider right away.
Example Output: 2 health departments investigate Legionnaires’ disease.

Example Input: The story frames the discussion in terms of income to the company, but doesn’t address the costs to patients or society. The story said the estimated market for a drug that could alter the course of Alzheimer’s “could be worth more than $10 billion in yearly sales.” Some discussion of the cost to society of treating Alzheimer’s would have been a good addition. Or, the story could have explored the cost per patient using the potential revenue estimates to give readers a sense of how much a drug like this might cost. There was no mention of the size of the benefit observed. A STAT news story on this same trial noted that the study failed to meet its primary endpoint, which means the trial failed. As in many past Alzheimer’s drug trials, the company found positive results only in a sub-group of patients. As we’ve written previously, in larger subsequent studies, the drugs have all failed. The story said reported side effects included reactions at the sites of the infusion and swelling around blood vessels observed with brain imaging, and that the companies “said they plan to present the results in detail at [an] academic conference.” The story could have been clearer on how common these side effects are and how serious they were. According to the companies’ news release, infusion-related reactions “were mostly mild to moderate in severity. Incidence of ARIA-E (edema) was not more than 10% in any of the treatment arms, and less than 15% in patients with … the highest dose per the study protocol safety and reporting procedures.” These are concerning potential harms for which no one knows the long-term consequences. Cautions were given early and often about the uncertainty of the evidence. For example, a secondary headline cautioned it’s “too soon to say drug marks real advance,” while the lead mentioned that “a string of failures shadow the efforts” to develop a treatment for Alzheimer’s. The second paragraph further tempered expectations: Alzheimer’s has proved an especially tough drug target. Approved therapies only relieve symptoms temporarily, and one experimental treatment after another promising to stymie the neurodegeneration has ultimately failed to work. Some pharmaceutical companies, after costly failures, pulled out. Also mentioned high in the story was the data were preliminary and based on “a mid-stage study looking for the right dose.” Further down readers were informed of uncertainties around outcomes measures and analytical methods and the need for independent review. There was no disease-mongering. The story offered some perspective on the impact of the the disease: “An estimated 5.7 million Americans live with Alzheimer’s, a figure expected to rise as the population ages, the Alzheimer’s Association says.” In addition to business analysts, the story quoted Lon S. Schneider, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine, who “warned against reading too much” into the announced results. The story mentioned there are 126 therapies in clinical development, according to  the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, with beta amyloid being the most common drug target being tested in human trials. It also mentioned approved therapies that “only relieve symptoms temporarily.” There is also evidence that a healthy lifestyle can be of benefit to people at risk for Alzheimer’s and those with early symptoms. The story made clear this drug is still in development. The story explained that this is one of many attempts to find a treatment for Alzheimer’s. The story didn’t rely on the companies’ news release.
Example Output:
Drugmakers Call Experimental Alzheimer’s Drug Study Positive