instruction:
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.
question:
"The article does not mention costs. The story provides absolute proportions of children who were overweight or obese at 5 or 7 years old. Groups compared included children of those mothers with normal glucose levels, children of those with a diabetes diagnosis who were treated, and children of those with high blood sugar levels who were not treated. Although it’s not entirely clear which group actually received treatment. The study does not mention any harms of treatment for high blood sugar, which could potentially include severe episodes of low blood sugar (if treated with insulin). Would also have been helpful to say more about the lifestyle/nutrition interventions and to note that they have not been found to cause harm, though the effects of materal stress/worry and the costs of blood glucose monitoring are not well studied. The story does not make it clear what type of evidence the findings are based on. For instance, it’s not clear if results are from a randomized trial (the gold standard) or some other study design. An astute reader may be able to infer that this is not a randomized clinical trial from the statement that data were ""analyzed"", but one also doesn’t know if the design was prospective or retrospective, which would add to knowledge about the strength of the study. The fact that we actually don’t know what treatment women actually got is also not clearly discussed. There is no obvious embellishment or mistatement about gestational diabetes. The article provides a brief, but accurate description of what it is. The lead line ""women who develop diabetes during pregnancy"" is somewhat misleading because without clarification of the often transient nature of gestational diabetes, readers could think it means Type II diabetes – women who develop and continue to have diabetes. It would be preferable to define and use the term gestational diabetes or pregnancy-related diabetes much earlier. There is a quote from a researcher at Northwestern University who apparently is not affiliated with the latest findings. The story mentions treatment approaches of gestational diabetes, including diet, exercise, and insulin, which are appropriate. The article does not note the option of not treating (especially in the lower range) which is advocated by some. Assuming ""treatment"" in this case is ""exercise, a special diet, or insulin,"" the article does imply that these are available. Most, if not all, people will understand that treatment for high blood sugar is readily available. What’s new is that treatment of women with blood sugar that is high, but not high enough for a diagnosis of diabetes, may benefit from treatment with exercise, diet, or insulin as well. A more important wrinkle in this particular study is that ""treatment"" is inferred by practice patterns used at Kaiser and no individual-level data is available to determine if the women in the group that would have been provided with counseling/intervention of gestational diabetes actually received that counsel or acted on it. Thus the ""treated group"" is actually those who met gestational diabetes criteria by National Diabetes Data Group criteria – thus they are really the treatment eligible group among whom some (likely large) group received some completely not specified treatment. Treatment for gestational diabetes is not new, although the story does not explicitly state this. What the story implies is that diagnosis and treatment of diabetes at lower blood sugar thresholds than those currently treated may have a benefit for children, although more studies are needed. Diagnosing and treating more pregnant women with high blood sugar who don’t necessarily meet the traditional diabetes diagnosis would be new and there is some discussion around this. Since the story used at least one independent perspective, it does not appear to have relied soley or largely on a news release."
answer:
Diabetes care during pregnancy reduces risk of obese children


question:
The Arkansas Department of Health issued the public health directive in a Nov. 22 letter that stated students without at least two doses of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine either be vaccinated immediately or be barred from classrooms and school activities for at least 26 days. Brothers Shiloh Isaiah and Benjamin Andrew Bemis asked the Washington County Circuit to issue a temporary injunction, arguing “that the University of Arkansas failed to recognize and uphold our philosophical beliefs as enrolled students -- beliefs which include the choice to abstain from vaccinations.”   In a one-sentence order, Judge Doug Martin on Tuesday denied their request to be allowed to return to their classes without getting the vaccinations. Martin’s order didn’t explain the reason for the decision. Shiloh Bemis, 21, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that he’s disappointed in the court’s order. “On a larger level, we are taking issue with the fact that we don’t think we’ve quite been given a choice that fully takes into account what we believe our rights to be,” the third-year architecture student from Fayetteville said. Benjamin Bemis didn’t respond to the Democrat-Gazette’s request for comment. State law requires vaccinations for students, but it also allows exemptions for medical, religious or philosophical reasons. But the state Health Department said even exempted students must heed the public health directive. “Even if they have an exemption, they still are supposed to be excluded from class and activities, since they are much more susceptible to getting the infection,” said Dr. Joel Tumlison, a physician specialist in the health department’s outbreak response team. “For any student, whether simply undervaccinated or with an exemption, if they change their mind and get the vaccine, they can then return to class/activities.” University spokesman Mark Rushing said the school will continue to follow the health department’s instructions. The university has had 26 mumps cases since September, according to health officials. As of last week, 168 students lacked the required vaccinations to attend classes, UA spokesman Zac Brown said.
answer:
Arkansas judge denies students’ appeal to vaccination policy.


question:
There was no discussion of costs – not for the individual and not for health planners and society. As we discussed in the “availability” criterion above, this is an important question. The story reported that the test was 90% accurate, but it could have provided more insight to readers about what this  90% means. This study is really just about predicting whether the stroke was in the past 3 hours or not. It would have been helpful to show the net effect size for strokes within 3 hours vs. those > 3 hours – it is not a very big absolute difference, but that is the cut-point that has been used. It also could have included some information about how the rates of complication change when tPA is given to patients beyond this 3 (or 4.5 even) hour window. Nonetheless, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. There was no mention of any possible harms associated this application of MRI technology. Although the harms would likely be small, the harm that may arise from incidental findings is worth noting. The more you scan – something being proposed in this study – the more you find, including things you didn’t need to find. That’s worth at least a line. The story mentioned that the study reported on studied MRI scans from 130 patients who had had strokes to examine how well this technology could be used to determine whether the stroke had started with the previous 3 hours or not. It mentioned that the study reported that the test had 90% accuracy in making this retrospective determination. The story mentioned a couple of limitations of the study and what the next research steps may be before deciding whether MRI really is a valuable tool to use as a diagnostic for time of stroke onset. No disease mongering about stroke in this story. The story included quotes from independent experts. The story provided insight about a couple of situations in which it wasn’t possible to determine the time of stroke onset. The study reported on whether MRI could be used in these sorts of situations when the patient isn’t able to provide information about the time of stroke onset. The story could have done a better job raising the question of availability of MRI around the US for urgent use at times like those described in the story or in the study – when there is a question about the 3 hour window. The story alluded to this but was not fully discussed in the context of availability of treatment. Do 80% of hospitals or hospital regions have MRIs ready for this use? 50%? 10%? Availability of the technology in question is a key concern – with huge cost implications. The story was clear about the ‘novelty’ of using MRI technology in this way. The story did not hype MRI as a new technology but rather as a  technology that was not commonly used for the purpose reported on. The story did include a quote from the lead study author that the current study supported results that have been published in the past. It’s clear that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
answer:

MRI Images May Pinpoint Time of Stroke