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:
Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital plans to open a second proton therapy center in 2020, and Mercy Hospital St. Louis expects to open its own proton center two years later, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported . Proton therapy zap cancerous cells with precise beams of radiation while sparing surrounding tissue. Unlike traditional X-rays, the proton beams stop at the tumor instead of traveling through the body. The new $32 million proton system planned at Barnes-Jewish Hospital will provide “pencil-beam” precision to target tumors, said Dr. Jeffrey Bradley, director of Siteman’s S. Lee Kling Proton Therapy Center. It will be built next to a $20 million machine, which opened in late 2013, that uses magnets to scatter proton beams across a tumor. Siteman has treated about 800 patients with the proton therapy, close to its projections of 200 patients a year. The first proton centers built in the 1990s were known for their football-field size and up to $200 million price tag. To offset the costs, the centers marketed heavily to men with prostate cancer, despite a lack of evidence that patients have better outcomes or fewer side effects compared to cheaper treatment alternatives. In 2013, Washington University was the first to open a smaller, less-expensive proton system with one treatment room. “That’s very different from other centers that went all in, borrowed money, and put in four-room centers,” Bradley said. “The one room at a time idea is a very viable idea.” Bradley and other radiation oncologists say a major hurdle is insurance companies’ reluctance to cover proton therapy. That can cost 50 percent to 75 percent more than traditional radiation, according to industry groups. “Where the insurers like to say that proton therapy is not beneficial is often because they do not perform an adequate review of the evidence,” said Scott Warwick, executive director of the National Association for Proton Therapy. “We have notified the payers that they have often either misinterpreted data, reviewed older evidence or omitted key evidence in development of their coverage policies.” ___ Information from: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, http://www.stltoday.com

Ex Output:
St. Louis medical organizations plan more proton therapy.


Ex Input:
Although there was no discussion of costs, the article was clear in stating that vaccines are for the most part in an early stage of development, so this omission is understandable. We wanted to see better coverage of the data here. The story leads with an anecdote about a patient who kicked a pack-a-day smoking habit after treatment with a nicotine vaccine in a study. And later, the story says that smokers who received that vaccine were “about three times as likely to be off cigarettes 44 weeks after vaccination than subjects given a placebo.” The story should have provided the absolute rates of success reported in the study, which were only 16% for the treatment group compared with 6% for the placebo group, according to theheart.org. Elsewhere, the story describes an experimental anticocaine vaccine that was apparently very effective in a mouse study; it could have reported on phase II human data that is available for the TA-CD anticocaine vaccine that was also mentioned in the story. These data again suggest that only a minority of patients may benefit from the use of anti-addiction vaccines. The story states that “clinical trials have so far revealed no significant side effects” from vaccine treatments. However, we think the story should have included an important caveat: that these are early stage trials involving small numbers of patients that can’t provide conclusive evidence of safety. In addition, it should be recognized that addictions are chronic conditions and these vaccine treatments are likely to be long-term as well. Therefore, longer-term adverse effects should be expected, especially for a treatment that interferes with molecules closely related to the body’s natural chemical messengers. The story could have been a bit more circumspect on this point. The promise of this new vaccine technology is counterbalanced by coverage of the uncertainties. The story gives appropriate weight to the disappointing results reported in a number of early clinical studies, noting: “Failures have so far outnumbered successes.” The story adds that even in one of the successful vaccine studies, the benefits were not as robust as those seen with a smoking cessation drug that is already on the market. There also is no prospect for a vaccine to treat alcoholism, according to the story. The article should have been more direct about the limitations of mouse research, and there was not enough detail on the data published in the various studies reported on (a deficiency we address under the “Benefits” criterion). However, since the story was trying to present a broad overview of happenings in the field and wasn’t attempting to summarize any particular study, we’ll give the benefit of the doubt here and award a satisfactory. The story didn’t exaggerate the effects of substance abuse disorders or otherwise engage in disease-mongering. The sourcing of this story was good. We hear from academics, government researchers, and industry executives. Their voices provide balance and give texture to the coverage. It should be noted, however, that most of these experts have a vested interest in the field or the success of a particular treatment, whether because of industry ties or because they are leading experiments on a particular approach. Even the government experts might be biased by their provision of significant financial support for research in this area. It would have been nice to hear a comment about the vaccines from someone who is certifiably free of all potential conflicts. But we can’t justify docking points since there is no voice that is overly enthusiastic about the concept. The story compares the potential of vaccines with the benefits of existing medications for addiction–and notes that the available drugs might work better. We would like to have seen more ink given to the role of behavioral approaches in the management of addiction, which are supported by considerable evidence. However, the story does acknowledge that vaccines “would likely be used alongside psychological therapy.” We’ll call it good enough for a satisfactory. The article helpfully states that “It could be years, if ever, before any vaccines to treat addiction reach the market.” The article does a good job of describing how far along the various experimental vaccines mentioned in the article are in their development. Although the story could have provided more background on the history of anti-addiction vaccines (a heroin vaccine was explored in the 1970s), the treatments being explored now are different from anything currently available. So we don’t think this story overstates the novelty of the research. This story is not based on a news release.

Ex Output:
Quest for Vaccines to Treat Addiction


Ex Input:
"While Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is not up for re-election until 2018, she’s still engaging in at least one of the biggest issues in the 2016 campaign. In January, she co-sponsored legislation to appropriate $10 million to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the next five years for firearm research. To promote her legislation, Baldwin tweeted this on Jan. 24, 2015, citing limits on what the CDC can do: ""Over 32,000 people die from #GunViolence every year. Yet, @CDCgov is banned from researching ways to prevent this."" We wondered if Baldwin was right. Gun violence numbers As backup for the statistic that 32,000 people die from gun violence every year, Baldwin’s team pointed to the CDC’s National Vital Statistics database. It’s the most comprehensive source for national statistics as it is a census, pulling information from death certificates. The report shows that in 2013, the latest year for which data is available, there were 33,636 gun-related deaths. Beyond that, from 2009-2013, an average of 32,100 people died each year from gun-related injuries. So Baldwin is on target with the number. About one third of gun-related deaths are homicides, with suicides counting for about two thirds of deaths. PolitiFact Texas examined a similar claim from presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in October 2015: ""We lose an average of 90 Americans every day because of guns."" This claim was backed up by taking the number of firearm deaths tallied by the CDC in 2013 and averaging it out over a year. Clinton hit the number, but didn’t mention that most of those deaths are suicides, not homicides. Dickey amendment In the second part of her claim, Baldwin said the CDC is ""banned from researching ways to prevent"" gun violence. Her tweet linked to a news release that pointed to a 1996 piece of legislation as evidence. The news release said, in part: ""Currently, a Republican appropriations rider from 1996 prohibits funding for such critical research at the CDC, even though the original rider’s author, former Republican Jay Dickey, has since announced his opposition to it noting that the rider’s intention was to prevent the CDC from lobbying for gun control, not from conducting gun-violence research."" This 1996 rider is commonly called the Dickey Amendment. In the early 1990s, the New England Journal of Medicine published research that concluded gun ownership, independent of other factors, increased the risk for a homicide in the home. The study was funded by the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In the wake of the research, and subsequent media attention, the National Rifle Association campaigned for the elimination of the injury prevention center. While the center survived, new language in the 1996 budget bill said that ""none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."" In some ways the statement was redundant, as general funding cannot be used for advocacy. Congress also took from the CDC’s budget $2.6 million -- the exact amount invested in firearm injury research the previous year. While the language against advocating and promoting gun control did not explicitly ban the CDC from researching gun violence, the CDC stopped the work anyway. Linda Degutis, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said the action by Congress sent a strong message to the CDC. ""Even though that language doesn’t say research is prohibited,"" Degutis said, ""everyone who was making decisions interpreted it to mean that you could not do any research on gun violence."" The language, and lack of funding, has carried on in spending bills and even been expanded to the National Institute of Health, another agency in the Department of Health and Human Services. ""It is the equivalent of a ban,"" said David Hemenway, director of the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University. ""It’s a touch more nuanced than a ban, but there’s basically no real difference in terms of research."" In the wake of mass shootings in 2013, President Barack Obama requested the CDC be granted new funding to study gun violence. Congress did not appropriate the funds. Our rating Baldwin said ""over 32,000 people die from #GunViolence every year. Yet, @CDCgov is banned from researching ways to prevent this."" The most comprehensive data available supports the first part of the claim, that more than 32,000 people die from gun violence every year. On the research ban, while the language from the Dickey Amendment does not explicitly ban the agency from conducting research, its interpretation effectively banned the practice. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."

Ex Output:

Over 32,000 people die from #GunViolence every year. Yet, (The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) is banned from researching ways to prevent this.