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.

Ex Input:
There was no discussion of costs. Costs would include treating the double digit rates of incontinence and erectile dysfunction in these younger men who do have surgery. The surgery may help them live longer, but many, especially since younger at time of surgery, live decades with these potential harms and folllowup costs of the surgical choice. This should get at least a line in such stories. While describing some of the differences observed in general terms without quantification, the story provided absolute percentage of men dying from prostate cancer in the two study groups. The story then went on to explain that the difference was in the men who were less 65 years of age at the time of diagnosis. The story would have been better if it had more clearly explained this important caveat about the benefit seen. The potential harms associated with various approaches to treating prostate cancer as well as the increased risk of prostate cancer progression and death seen in the cohort of men who followed the watchful waiting approach were discussed. The story did a laudable job of providing information about the study reported on including the fact that the results most recently published basically expand the timeframe of followup on these men which have previously been published. It provided insight about the number of men involved in the study, how their prostate cancer was detected and that the men had been randomly assigned to their treatment group. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Two clinicians who were not involved in the study provided quotes which were used in the story. The story included a list of the commonly available treatment options for early stage prostate cancer. But we must give an unsatisfactory score because the story included a factually incorrect statement indicating that watchful waiting is synonymous with active surveillance. It is not. The story went on to misinform readers by indicating “watchful waiting is often recommended when a man is not expected to die of the cancer” by failing to complete the thought by explaining that the reason they are not expected to die of the cancer is because their advanced age makes it unlikely that the cancer will have sufficient time to progress to lethality OR because they have other diseases from which they are likely to succumb before there is time for the prostate cancer to be deadly. An important caveat about how the prostate cancer in the study differed from the way in which prostate cancer is most commonly detected today in the US was explained. The story provided a reasonable view of the novelty of the treatment options detailed in the study along with the critically important caveat that the majority of the men in the study had their prostate cancer first detected at a later state than is seen with the current screening practices in the US. The story did not rely on a news release.

Ex Output:
Aggressive Treatment May Be Beneficial for Early Prostate Cancer


Ex Input:
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.

Ex Output:
Computers help docs spot breast cancer on X-rays


Ex Input:
Those in the second group likely bear a gene type that not  only increases their addiction risk, but has been implicated in  the development of lung cancer, researchers said on Friday. “If you have this variant, you are going to like your  earliest experiences with smoking,” said Ovide Pomerleau of the  University of Michigan Medical School, whose research appears  in the journal Addiction. Pomerleau said the finding suggests that for some, smoking  even one cigarette is a bad idea. “It’s a trap,” he said in a  telephone interview. “What they don’t realize is if they have this kind of  genetic make-up, they are on their way to dependency,” he said,  and that raises their risk for lung cancer. The research is part of a growing understanding of genetic  factors involved in nicotine addiction and lung cancer. Teams of scientists reported earlier this year that smokers  who had certain changes in three nicotine receptor genes —  which control entry of nicotine into brain cells — were more  likely to develop lung cancer than other smokers. This week, Canadian researchers said that, by manipulating  receptors for the chemical dopamine, they were able to control  which rats in a study enjoyed their first exposure to nicotine  and which were repelled by it. Pomerleau said the field may soon lead to new treatments  for nicotine addiction and tests to assess addiction risks. Smoking causes nine out of 10 cases of lung cancer, the  leading cause of cancer death in men worldwide and the  second-leading cause of cancer death among women. Pomerleau and colleagues studied data from 435 people. Some  had tried a cigarette but never developed a habit; others  smoked at least five cigarettes a day for the past five years. Regular smokers in the study were far more likely than  those who had never smoked to have a change in the CHRNA5  nicotine receptor gene. Smokers were eight times more likely to  report liking cigarettes from the start. Pomerleau said work has begun to develop a genetic screen  for the CHRNA5 variant. Two other researchers on the team,  Laura Bierut and John Rice at Washington University, hold a  patent on the gene variant, which has been licensed by  privately held Perlegen Sciences Inc.    Pfizer Inc, maker of the smoking cessation drug Chantix  owns a $50 million stake in Perlegen. Pomerleau, who has served on Pfizer’s scientific advisory  board, said he favors development of diagnostic tests, as long  as people understand it is not the only risk factor for  nicotine addiction. “What we don’t know is far greater than what we do know,”  he said.

Ex Output:

Gene raises risk of lifetime smoking habit: study.