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.

Q: "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."

A: Diabetes care during pregnancy reduces risk of obese children
****
Q: The story does not mention the costs of screening or follow-up tests or treatment – to the individual or, collectively, to society. Those costs are significant. This story uses several different statistics and expert perspectives to explain what the researchers found in their examination of the effects of mammography screening. It not only include the relative risk reduction (10 percent) and an absolute risk reduction statistic (among women in their 50s, a decade of screening would boost the likelihood of avoiding a fatal breast cancer from 995.6 out of 1,000 to 996 out of 1,000), but it also offered comments from different experts about how they would personally value effects of that size. The story notes that screening mammography exposes women to false alarms scares as well as the risks and harms of treating tumors that actually would not have become life-threatening. This story explains how this study is different from earlier research on mammography. It points out both advantages of the study methods (comparing women in regions with screening to those without as Norway rolled out a national program over a 9 year period) and limitations (an observational study like this is not as powerful as a randomized trial, and the study might have found more benefits to screening if it had lasted longer). The story also noted the uncertainty in the numbers the researchers reported and that the real differences might be different. The story does not exaggerate the risk of breast cancer or the need to be screened for it. The story includes comments from several independent sources offering a variety of perspectives. It does not mention that the study was funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. The story notes that improved treatments appear to have reduced the breast cancer death rate even among women who did not have regular screening mammograms. Not being screened was clearly acknowledged as an alternative, something not all competing stories explicitly addressed. The availability of mammography screening is not at issue. This story does point out that the women who were screened in Norway had access to special treatment teams. And it noted that these treatments are available at “many major medical centers in the United States.”  Mammography is not new, but this story does a good job of explaining what is new about the way these researchers examined the effects of screening. The story includes comments from several sources and does not appear to rely on a news release.

A: Mammogramsâ€™ Value in Cancer Fight at Issue
****
Q: Made by Bayer AG and Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc, Nexavar is  approved in the United States for kidney and liver cancer. Eight out of the first nine patients who took the drug saw  improvements in their ability to exercise, and six out of nine  had significant improvement in their right ventricular ejection  fraction, which measures the heart’s ability to pump blood to  the lungs. Four patients had decreased pressure in their pulmonary  artery, which supplies blood to the lungs. “What patients are telling us is they are able to do more  in their daily lives,” said Dr. Mardi Gomberg-Maitland of the  University of Chicago, who presented her findings at a meeting  of the American Thoracic Society in Toronto. The original  research on the drug was done at the University. She said the surprising thing is that the drug worked so  quickly. Patients saw benefits in only four months. The study is the first human trial to examine the  sorafenib, or Nexavar, in pulmonary hypertension, a disease in  which blood vessels feeding the lungs narrow, forcing the heart  to work harder. Like cancer, pulmonary hypertension is a disease marked by  abnormal cell growth, which narrows the arteries feeding the  lungs, reducing blood flow and taxing the heart. Sorafenib  appears to interfere with this process. The trial enrolled patients with stable disease who  continued to take their primary medications, which included a  continuous infusion of a drug called prostacyclin and Pfizer  Inc’s Viagra or sildenafil. Both relax blood vessels that feed  the lungs. Gomberg-Maitland said this therapy typically slows  progression of the disease, but does not reverse it. They added sorafenib for 16 weeks, but at a lower dose than  cancer patients use. Most patients in the trial increased their exercise  capacity, as measured by time on a treadmill or a six-minute  walk test. They saw an average 8 percent improvement in their  right ventricular ejection fraction, a measure of the heart’s  pumping power. Side effects included mild hair loss and skin reactions. The study was designed to last only 16 weeks, but all of  the patients continue to take the drug, some now for more than  a year. “What is exciting about this is all of the patients feel  better and nobody wants to come off the medication,”  Gomberg-Maitland said in a telephone interview. The study was intended to test the safety and dosing of the  drug. It was funded by The Doris Duke Foundation and the  University of Chicago. The researchers now plan to study the drug in 40 to 60  patients at different research centers.

A:
Nexavar helped in pulmonary hypertension study.
****