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:
The question of cost is cited in the final line of the story, which suggests that the scoring system can “address escalating health care cost issues.” But we didn’t think that was specific enough to warrant a Satisfactory score. The story doesn’t clue readers in to the fact that the financial burden can be measured in billions of dollars — a single screening test recommended for millions of Americans can cost thousands of dollars apiece. The other cost issue specific to this test is that it takes valuable time for providers to retrieve a reputable risk calculator when sitting with a patient and enter in the specific data points, including in this case waist circumference, which clinicians often do not measure as a ‘vital sign’ per se. The story cites a study that credits colonoscopy with reducing the risk of death from colon cancer by about 50 percent, by removing polyps. It would have been helpful for the story to explain what that relative reduction in risk means in absolute terms (e.g. did the rate of cancer death go from 50% to 25% or from 2% to around 1%?) The story also notes that the study found that patients with a low to intermediate risk score “still have a risk between of between 1.9 percent to 9.9 percent of harboring a polyp that can develop into cancer.” We’ll give credit here for the story’s provision of these key statistics, which do give a sense as how well the test accurately identifies truly low-risk individuals. However, we’d note that the benefit here should ideally refer to the ability of the algorithm to classify people at all risk levels (including high-risk), and therefore target the highest-risk patients for colonoscopy. The story doesn’t really get into discussion of the predictive power of the test, referred to as a likelihood ratio, which is in the study manuscript. However, this is a difficult concept for most health care providers and patients, and we think it’s understandable that the story did not include a full discussion of this topic. The harm of a screening test such as this really is “getting it wrong” in terms of predicting someone to be at low risk and finding them to have a higher risk polyp or malignancy. As noted above, the story cautions that “low- to intermediate-risk patients still have a risk between of between 1.9 percent to 9.9 percent of harboring a polyp that can develop into cancer.” This story accurately explains that the research was about predictive modeling, and explains the components of the risk score as well as the study design. There are some cautionary notes in the text, including a statement from outside expert that “the data from this study is not strong enough to spur any changes in current screening recommendations,” an opinion shared by an editorialist on the study. We think this is sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story does not hype the incidence or seriousness of the disease. The prevalence statistics cited are consistent with these National Cancer Institute figures. The story contains two independent voices. The perspective they provide is a particular strength of the article. We wish that more stories would reach out to experts not affiliated with the studies being reported on for context. The story notes that a variety of screening tests exist, but the relevant alternative here is actually other risk calculators, which the authors of the study describe and cite but are not routinely used. The story doesn’t mention these other calculators and why they are seldom used — context that would have deepened reader understanding of the issue. Although availability isn’t explicitly addressed, this risk calculator is now available (implicitly) by virtue of publication of the paper. It is a simple scoring system that can be implemented based on the information in the paper, and the story makes this clear. We’ll rate this Satisfactory. The story makes it sound as if this is a first-of-its-kind tool. However, risk calculation tools for colon cancer have been in circulation for many years. We could not find a news release related to this study. But in any case, the comments from two independent experts assure us that the story wasn’t based on a news release.

Ex Output:
'Scoring System' May Spot Those in Greatest Need of Colonoscopy; But one expert cautions that even 'low risk' patients can still develop suspicious polyps


Ex Input:
On September 27 2020, a number of Facebook posts claiming that Amy Coney Barrett had been a judge for “2 years 10 months [and] 23 days” began circulating:All three of the posts above read:2 years, 10 months, 23 days.The length of time Amy Coney Barrett has been a judge.Occasionally, a person sharing the post added to the text:All of the examples we found utilized Facebook’s text-based status update image generator, creating a colorful and highly shareable post without the ability to easily add a citation. Commenters frequently opined that Amy Coney Barrett’s time on the bench was insufficient, but none appeared to be verifying the accuracy of the viral posts.BackgroundAt 7:28 PM EST on September 18 2020, NPR reported that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died of metastatic pancreatic cancer; the Supreme Court issued a press release:Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died this evening [of September 18 2020] surrounded by her family at her home in Washington, D.C., due to complications of metastatic pancreas cancer. She was 87 years old. Justice Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Clinton in 1993. She was the second woman appointed to the Court and served more than 27 years.At 8:15 PM EST on September 18 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was named in articles about who might be Ginsburg’s possible replacement on the bench:The line to succeed the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court likely starts with these federal appeals court judges:Amy Coney BarrettA finalist for Trump’s second high court nomination, which ultimately went to Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett, 48, is a favorite of religious conservatives.Barrett rocketed to the top of Trump’s list of potential nominees after her 2017 confirmation hearing for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, when Democrats cited her deep Catholic faith not as an advantage but an obstacle. She was confirmed, 55-43.By September 19 2020, Coney Barrett was described as a front-runner in ongoing coverage of Ginsburg’s death. Politico reported:President Donald Trump is expected to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, setting in motion a likely sharp shift toward a more conservative court.If confirmed, Barrett would take the seat vacated after the death of the liberal-leaning Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Trump indicated that he intended to nominate Barrett on September 19 2020:Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a federal appellate judge and Notre Dame law professor, is a proven conservative with a compelling personal story who has long been atop President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court short list.Trump announced Saturday [September 19 2020] he is nominating Barrett to be the new high court justice during a ceremony at the White House Rose Garden. The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin confirmation hearings on Barrett’s nomination on October 12 [2020].Barrett, the mother of seven children and a former law clerk to the late right-wing beacon Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett, now 48, was a finalist for the Supreme Court spot that went to Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.She met with Trump to discuss the nomination on Monday [September 21 2020], sources close to the process told CNN.Amy Coney Barrett’s Resume and Time on the BenchOn September 21 2020, SCOTUSBlog.com profiled Amy Coney Barrett’s career, detailing her “prolific” academic career and adding:Barrett spent a year as a law and economics fellow at George Washington University before heading to her alma mater, Notre Dame, in 2002 to teach federal courts, constitutional law and statutory interpretation. Barrett was named a professor of law at the school in 2010; four years later, she became the Diane and M.O. Research Chair of Law. Barrett was named “distinguished professor of the year” three times. […]During her 15 years as a full-time law professor, Barrett’s academic scholarship was prolific. Several of her articles, however, drew fire at Barrett’s confirmation hearing, with Democratic senators suggesting that they indicate that Barrett would be influenced by her Catholic faith, particularly on the question of abortion.On the University of Notre Dame’s website, a biography page described Barrett’s career in academia further. A subsequent section on SCOTUSBlog.com read in part:Trump nominated Barrett to the 7th Circuit on May 8, 2017. Despite some criticism from Democrats, she garnered bipartisan support at her confirmation hearing … On Oct. 31, 2017, Barrett was confirmed to the 7th Circuit by a vote of 55 to 43.On September 26 2020, the White House published a briefing (“Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Exceptional Legal Experience, Expertise, and Judicial Record Make Her the Right Choice to Serve on the Supreme Court”) and addressed Barrett’s qualifications. That section noted she had served as a judge since 2017:EXCEPTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:Judge Amy Coney Barrett brings a wealth of experience from her time in private practice, academia, and public service.As noted, Amy Coney Barrett received her commission on November 2 2017:Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitNominated by Donald J. Trump on May 8, 2017, to a seat vacated by John Daniel Tinder. Confirmed by the Senate on October 31, 2017, and received commission on November 2, 2017.2 Years, 10 Months, and 23 DaysThe “2 Years, 10 Months, and 23 Days” posts appeared around September 27 2020, but they were later shared in screenshots on later dates.Two years, ten months, and 23 days after November 2 2017 was either September 25 or 26 2020, according to a “time between dates” calculator.TL;DRSeveral Facebook posts (and tweets) simply read “2 years, 10 months, 23 days, the length of time Amy Coney Barrett has been a judge”; we found no variation of the claim that included a citation. Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on October 31 2017, and received commission on November 2 2017. Although the calculation was oddly specific and therefore slightly inaccurate, Barrett took the bench roughly two years, ten months, and 23 days before the posts began circulating.Comments

Ex Output:
2 years, 10 months, 23 days. The length of time Amy Coney Barrett has been a judge.


Ex Input:
The story does not mention the cost of mammography (or of follow up tests and treatments) to the individual, or, collectively, to society. And these costs are substantial. Based on the results of this study, 2,500 women would have to be screened every other year for a decade in order to prevent one death from breast cancer. As the story points out, during that same time 1,000 of those women would have at least one false alarm and 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy, thus adding to the price tag. On balance, this story does a fair job of describing the benefits of screening mammography as seen in this study. It reports the apparent 10 percent reduction in breast cancer deaths, while also pointing out that because relatively few women in the 50-69 age group die of breast cancer, that reduction can also be described as cutting the 10-year risk of death from 4.4 per 1,000 women to 4 per 1,000. The second statistic helps counteract popular assumptions about how many middle-aged women die from breast cancer. However, the framing of a story – and who gets the last word – sometimes overwhelms evidence-based explanations earlier in the story. That almost happened with this story, which gives the final word to an advocate of annual breast cancer screening for all women beginning by age 40, which is just the sort of blanket recommendation this latest study calls into question. The story includes a comment that because mammograms detect lumps that would not have become life-threatening, five to 15 women may be treated for every one whose life is saved by treatment. The story oversimplifies the methods used by researchers, saying they compared “women who were similar in most ways, except that one group received mammograms and the other didn’t,” without explaining that this was not a randomized trial where some women were assigned to screening and others weren’t, but rather an observational study that looked at data on women during a 9-year period when Norway phased in mammography region by region. The story does alert readers to some of the limitations of the study: one, that a longer follow-up period might have shown more benefit to screening and, two, that the researchers had no information on whether any of the women received mammograms outside of the national screening program. It’s a tossup for us to grade and, as we do in most such cases, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt.

Ex Output:

Mammogram benefits more modest than doctors thought