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


question:
The story should have stated how much CAD costs per mammogram, and how that compares to the costs of a radiologist or technician providing a second reading of the images. The story quotes a researcher saying cost-effectiveness needs to be studied. This should have triggered additional reporting comparing costs. The story says Medicare pays $15 per CAD reading, but this does not indicate whether this covers costs. The story does a good job of describing the methodology and the outcomes in terms readers can understand. The study results showed that the recall rates–the percentage of women brought back for a second mammogram–was signficantly higher with CAD than with double readings (3.9 percent vs. 3.5 percent). Yet CAD discovered no more cancers. These additional mammograms without more accurate diagnosis can produce increased anxiety and potentially more biopsies. The report should have mentioned this. This news report is based on a peer-reviewed study published in a top-tier medical journal. The underlying study itself is a randomized, blinded trial involving about 30,000 women. The story does nothing to exaggerate either the prevalence or severity of breast cancer, or the benefits of CAD. The reporter quotes the article itself, the lead author, a breast cancer clinician at a major teaching hospital, a medical society’s breast cancer expert, and a clinician who uses CAD in his practice. This is excellent sourcing. The story reports the study’s funding, as well as two of the researchers’ links to CAD makers. The story clearly compares the options of having two human readers of mammograms against one reader using CAD. Yet the reporter fails to compare the value of these methods with those when a single human reader is used, which remains the common practice in the U.S. The study reports that double readings have been shown to be 4 to 14 percent more effective in detecting cancers than single readings, with a recent meta-analysis showing a 10 percent advantage to double reading. This context would have been very valuable, to demonstrate that U.S. diagnostic practices miss a lot of cancers. The story states that computer-aided dectection (CAD) of breast cancer is used for about a third of mammograms in the U.S. This implies availability at more specialized facilities and teaching hospitals. A more direct statement of this would have been useful. But the story meets minimum standards under this criterion. The story says CAD is used for about one-third of mammograms in the U.S. and is likely to be used more as digital imaging becomes more widespread. The report does not appear to draw on the press release.
answer:
Computers help docs spot breast cancer on X-rays


question:
LGBT advocates praised the new recommendations for giving attention to a community that is often left out of sex education policies. But some parents and conservative groups assailed the more than 700-page document as an assault on parental rights, arguing it exposes children to ideas about sexuality and gender that should be taught at home. The guidance approved Wednesday by the California State Board of Education does not require educators to teach anything. It is designed as a guide for teachers to meet state standards on health education, such as nutrition, physical activity and combating alcohol and drug abuse. But it’s the parts about sex that got the most attention during a public hearing on Wednesday. The framework tells teachers that students in kindergarten can identify as transgender and offers tips for how to talk about that, adding “the goal is not to cause confusion about the gender of the child but to develop an awareness that other expressions exist.” It gives tips for discussing masturbation with middle-schoolers, including telling them it is not physically harmful, and for discussing puberty with transgender teens that creates “an environment that is inclusive and challenges binary concepts about gender.” “As the parent of three kids, we’re on a careful trajectory here not to be introducing things as though they are endorsed in some way,” board president Linda Darling-Hammond said. But Patricia Reyes, a 45-year-old mother of six, doesn’t believe that. She traveled more than 400 miles (about 644 kilometers) from her home in Southern California to attend Wednesday’s hearing, bringing along her 4-year-old daughter, Angeline, who held a sign that read: “Protect my innocence and childhood.” “It’s just scary what they are going to be teaching. It’s pornography,” she said. “If this continues, I’m not sending them to school.” Much of the pushback focused not on the framework, but on the books it recommends students read. An earlier draft of the document suggested high schoolers read the book: “S.E.X. : The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties.” It includes descriptions of anal sex, bondage and other sexual activity. Several parents read from the book and held it up so board members could see the pictures, which many described as “obscene.” The board responded by removing the book, plus a few others, from the guidance. “It’s important to know the board is not trying to ban books. We’re not saying that the books are bad,” board member Feliza I. Ortiz-Licon said. “But the removal will help avoid the misunderstanding that California is mandating the use of these books.” More than 200 people signed up to speak during a public hearing on Wednesday that lasted for several hours. Supporters and opponents mingled together in the lobby of the California Department of Education, where parents handed out snacks to appease their young children while waiting for their number to appear on dry-erase board telling them it was their turn to get one minute of time at the microphone. Speakers included 16-year-old Phoenix Ali Rajah, a transgender boy who said he is rarely taught information for people like him during sex education classes at his Los Angeles area high school. “I’m never taught about how to be in a relationship with gay men,” he said, adding that the “conversation with sex starts from a different place.” Michele McNutt, 49, focused on the framework’s attention to healthy relationships and consent, something she said is never too soon to teach her two daughters in public school, ages 11 and 9. “Withholding medically accurate, scientific information from them actually causes more harm and does not actually protect innocence,” she said while wearing a purple T-shirt that read “protect trans students. “If you don’t give kids accurate information about their own body ... how are they able to make good choices?” The guidance was developed with input from teachers across the state, and several spoke in favor of the recommendations on Wednesday. But not Tatyana Dzyubak, an elementary school teacher in the Sacramento area. “I shouldn’t be teaching that stuff,” she said. “That’s for parents to do.”
answer:

California overhauls sex education guidance for teachers.