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 story does not describe the costs of uterine artery embolization or how they compare to costs of surgery. The cost of UAE is quite high and for some women may not be covered by insurance. The story provides adequate quantification of some of the most important things for consumers to know, such as the fact that after a year, there were no differences in the quality of life of the women assigned to uterine artery embolization compared to those assigned to surgery and that 13% of those who underwent UAE had a repeat hospitalization, mostly for surgical intervention because of failure of UAE to achieve the desired results. The story could have provided more quantification of other pieces of information that women would want to know, such as length of hospital stay, time to return to work, or risk of serious adverse events. The story does mention some of the potential harms of uterine artery embolization, such as the need for repeat procedures for treatment of recurrent symptoms and the fact that there are questions about safety of pregnancy after the procedure. The story should have also mentioned the potential for ovarian failure, causing infertility, infection, delayed complications and a small risk of emergency hysterectomy. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story accurately describes the prevalence and symptoms of uterine fibroids. The story only uses quotes from the original article and accompanying editorial. It doesn't appear that the authors were even interviewed. The story should have quoted other clinicians/researchers who were not related to the study who could have provided some perspective on what this new information means for clinical practice. The story does mention alternative options such as myomectomy (surgical removal of the fibroids), hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) in addition to uterine artery embolization. The story could have mentioned other treatments such as watchful waiting, pain medications or birth control pills. The story does not state whether uterine artery embolization (UAE) is available and if so, how widely. And availability is a real issue. It requires expertise in interventional vascular radiology and an interest in the female pelvic anatomy. Facilities offering the procedure would need strong links between gynecologists and radiologists to provide coordinated assessment and care. This is not explained in the piece. The story implies that uterine artery embolization is a new procedure. The story could have mentioned that the procedure has been performed for more than 10 years in Europe and the US, although it has been limited to mostly academic hospitals. There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information, although it is noteworthy that the story only uses quotes lifted from the published study and from an accompanying editorial. It doesn't appear that these people were actually interviewed.

A: Treating fibroids without surgery
****
Q: The company’s forecast implies a potential $3 billion upgrade to the consensus estimate from analysts and marks an attempt to call a bottom to a sales decline driven by the loss of exclusivity on several top-selling medicines. Britain’s second-biggest drugmaker is already suffering from generic competition to its antipsychotic Seroquel, while its Nexium treatment for excess stomach acid loses U.S. patent cover this year. Top-selling Crestor, for high cholesterol, faces competition from cheap copycat drugs in 2016. The patent expiries leave AstraZeneca’s sales on a near-term downward spiral at a time when most of its rivals have put their biggest patent losses behind them. Shares in the group rose 1.6 percent by 1215 GMT on the more upbeat outlook, against a 0.3 percent decline for the European healthcare sector. Chief Executive Pascal Soriot, who has been leading the company for a little more than a year, will set out the new revenue guidance in a presentation at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare conference in San Francisco later on Tuesday. The company will then give a more detailed update on its progress in full-year results on February 6. The consensus of analyst forecasts compiled by Thomson Reuters is for 2017 revenue of $22.5 billion, down from the $25.8 billion estimated for 2013. However, a number of the 2017 forecasts pre-date the diabetes drug deal struck last month that is already expected to add some $1 billion to $2 billion to annual revenue. Citigroup analyst Andrew Baum said the positive medium-term outlook reinforced his “more constructive thesis” for the stock, adding that he expects Soriot to strike more earnings-boosting deals this year. Panmure Gordon’s Savvas Neophytou remains more wary, pointing out that Soriot’s predecessor, David Brennan, had made a similar attempt to talk up AstraZeneca’s longer-term prospects. “In our view, management is stepping onto thin ice with this same sort of guidance,” Neophytou said, pointing out the previous management’s failure to hit its forecasts. AstraZeneca has become more confident about its revenue outlook after the $4 billion deal last month to buy Bristol-Myers Squibb’s share of a diabetes joint venture. The acquisition is expected to complete in the first quarter of 2014 and will boost sales immediately. Mark Clark of Deutsche Bank said this was set to lift analysts’ revenue forecasts significantly, suggesting that a more realistic “adjusted consensus” for 2017 was around $24.3 billion rather than $22.5 billion. Soriot has been striking a number of bolt-on deals to refill the company’s thin pipeline of new medicines and accelerating in-house research programs. The group now has 11 new-drug programs in late-stage Phase III testing, almost double the number a year ago, and 27 in Phase II. Hopes are particularly high for its cancer research, where it has started trials for immunotherapy combination treatments for which the first results are anticipated in 2014/15. AstraZeneca is behind the likes of Bristol-Myers, Roche and Merck & Co in the race to develop immunotherapies - a hot new area of cancer research - but it is betting on combination treatments to help it to catch up. Immunotherapy, which harnesses the body’s immune system to fight cancer, has shown great promise in clinical trials and analysts believe that the treatments may extend patients’ lives significantly and generate tens of billions of dollars in annual sales.

A: Drugmaker AstraZeneca forecasts faster return to growth.
****
Q: "State Rep. Dean Kaufert said he was after things like soda and nachos when he proposed to limit how much junk food Wisconsinites could buy with food stamps. ""Hopefully, people’s health will get better,"" the Neenah Republican said in March 2013. But when the former potato chip salesman’s bill came up May 7, 2013, for a vote, there were signs of indigestion on the Assembly floor in Madison. ""The list of foods that you'd be restricted from buying under this is -- I don't know who came up with it. I think it's kind of shocking,"" complained Rep. Fred Clark, D-Baraboo. Clark continued by saying ""we're going to prevent -- or limit -- the extent to which"" food stamps could be used for a long list of foods -- including organic foods. Sure, sugary drinks and melty cheese might sometimes addle our brains. But organic foods are supposed to be better for you, right? So, is Clark correct -- would the junk food bill, approved by the Assembly minutes after his comments, prevent or limit the use of food stamps for organic foods? The program The food stamps program, known formally as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Federal funds pay for all of the benefits, although the states share the administrative costs with Uncle Sam. Food stamps -- actually, it’s a plastic card you can swipe electronically at the store -- are available to working and non-working people who have a low income. The benefits can generally be used to buy any food or food product, but hot foods cooked in the store, as well as alcoholic beverages, tobacco and pet food, are prohibited. In Wisconsin, the program is called FoodShare. It serves more than 850,000 adults and children, or 15 percent of the state’s residents, at a cost of more than $1 billion per year. Junk-food bill To take effect, Kaufert’s bill would need approval not only from the state Senate and Gov. Scott Walker but also the federal government. That's unlikely (for Wisconsin and South Carolina, which is considering a similar measure), Governing magazine suggests, given the USDA has denied every request like Kaufert’s that's been submitted for a federal ""waiver."" But let’s get the bill out on the table, anyway. Kaufert’s measure does not define junk food; rather, it would require FoodShare recipients to spend at least two-thirds of their benefits on a list of foods deemed by the state as healthy. The healthy foods list would have two components. It begins with a roster of foods approved by another federal-state food program -- Women, Infants and Children (WIC); then the bill adds some other food types, as well. So, where does that leave organic foods? Well, since the bill wouldn’t make any changes for one-third of a FoodShare recipient’s benefits, they could be used to buy anything from Funyuns to organic specialty onions. A recipient wouldn’t be prevented from spending all of the one-third on organic foods. But for the two-thirds portion of a person’s FoodShare benefits, there would be limits. The bill explicitly says fresh produce, including white potatoes, as well as beef, pork, chicken, and fish, would be on the healthy foods list. So, using the two-thirds to buy organic versions of those foods would be OK, unless the state at some point specifically prohibited them, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau. On the other hand, WIC benefits can’t be used for organic versions of some foods -- such as milk, cereal, bread and canned or dried peas, beans and lentils. (The government wants to encourage cheaper alternatives to stretch the money beneficiaries receive, according to the state Department of Health Services). Likewise, that means a person on FoodShare couldn’t use the two-thirds portion of their benefits toward those organics, if Kaufert's bill takes effect. Got it? FoodShare recipients could still use one-third of their benefits on any kind of organic food (or junk food, for that matter). But they could use the two-thirds portion only for some kinds of organics. Our rating Clark said a bill to limit use of food stamps for junk food would also ""prevent -- or limit --  the extent to which"" food stamps could be used for organic foods. There would be limits on which types of organic foods a person could buy with two-thirds of their food stamps, but not for the other third. The meat-and-potatoes portion of Clark's statement is accurate, but it needs a garnish or two of clarification -- our definition of ."

A:
"A Wisconsin bill to limit use of food stamps for junk food would also ""prevent -- or limit --  the extent to which"" food stamps could be used for organic foods."
****