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: The state Department of Public Health says they notified the school this week of plans to investigate and ensure that students and employees will be screened quickly to see if they were infected. On Wednesday, the state and university began identifying students enrolled in classes, as well as faculty and staff, who might have been in close contact with the student. Symptoms can include chest pain, chronic coughing, coughing with blood, chills, fever and loss of appetite. Testing is scheduled to begin on Thursday.

Output: Alabama to test Auburn students, employees for TB.


Input: Consider Input: Not applicable. It’s understandable that costs wouldn’t be discussed at this early stage of research. Adequate explanation of results observed in study participants at different dosing levels. More importantly, the story simply explained: “Since it’s not completely clear what reductions in brain plaques mean for Alzheimer’s patients, the researchers are unable to say whether treatment with gantenerumab will bring improvement to patients with Alzheimer’s. They are currently involved in a new study that they hope will answer that question.” Better than its HealthDay competition in that WebMD actually told us how many people experienced harms in the study. The story allowed a Roche senior VP to say the results “went beyond our expectations” but countered that with “What is not entirely known is if these plaques cause Alzheimer’s…Therefore, it’s not known if reducing the amount of them will slow or stop the disease.” No disease mongering at play here. The story added an important independent perspective and identified the study co-author as being a senior VP of the drug company making the drug. We preferred how HealthDay explained:  “There are approximately one dozen therapies, including vaccines, that are currently in the pipeline….none are ready for prime time.” The story ends with an appropriate send-off:  “We need more studies to know if it is safe or effective.”  The early, experimental nature of the research is clear. The HealthDay competitor did a better job of explaining where this study fits in the history of research into beta-amyloid. There was clear evidence of independent reporting.

Output: Drug May Reduce Plaque in Brains of Alzheimer’s Patients


Input: Consider Input: There is no discussion of cost in this release. Perhaps the cost of medical treatment is moot as both groups received that, but it’s useful context for the reader. CABG is major surgery and consequently expensive. Some estimates of cost for uninsured patients range from $70,000 to $200,000. Even with medical insurance coverage, deductibles can be very large. It’s also possible that the high cost of surgery could be offset by less need for downstream care among surgical patients who appeared to fare better in the study — e.g. less need for hospitalizations and other costly care. Discussion of any or all of these points would have earned the release a Satisfactory rating. The benefits of this approach are discussed in the release and quantified. “The bypass surgery was associated with an overall 1.4-year increase in median survival time (7.7 vs. 6.3 years),” according to the release. Overall, the release did a nice job of presenting absolute rates of death in each group of study participants, but there was no mention of statistical significance which would have been helpful to include for more savvy readers. The potential harms of a major surgery like CABG should have been mentioned as they must be considered and weighed against the benefits of 1.4 years of additional survival. The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute says the risks of CABG include “wound infection and bleeding, reactions to anesthesia, fever, pain, stroke, heart attack, or even death.” The release does a good job of characterizing the quality of the evidence, but we’re always open to even more details, such as how the study was blinded to prevent bias. The researchers managed to track nearly all of the subjects in the initial study. It is unclear how they accounted for those patients who later received CABG, left ventricular assist devices or heart transplants, but the 10 follow-up data appear well done. There is no disease mongering here. Coronary artery disease is widespread among the older American population. The funding sources are clearly stated in the paper. As this is part of a clinical trial, there appears to be no conflict of interest. The study itself compared alternatives, with half the patients randomized for medical treatment only and the other half for medical treatment and CABG. No comparison was made to the alternatives of heart transplant or left ventricular assist devices, but these do seem to be unusual treatments in this population. The release doesn’t talk about how often or widely CABG is used but it is well known that CABG is available and has been in use for many years. It would have been helpful to mention that CABG is performed on sicker patients in some specialty hospitals. The release claims novelty through this statement by a lead investigator: “The current 10-year follow-up provides new important insights about patient subgroups that are more likely to benefit from CABG as compared to medical therapy alone.” The procedure itself is not novel but this appears to be new information concerning patient outcomes in a specific subgroup. There is no unjustifiable language here.


Output: Heart bypass surgery brings long-term benefits