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.

Input: Consider Input: The story not only mentions the cost of a scan to individuals ($100 to $500), it also notes that about $50 million dollars was spent on this type of scanning nationwide in 2008. A longer story could have also reported on the costs of additional testing and treatments triggered by screening apparently healthy individuals. As mentioned above, the story notes that while some experts recommend CT screening for coronary artery calcium deposits in order to increase the number of people receiving treatment to reduce the likelihood of a heart, others are skeptical about the real value of this type of screening for apparently health people. The reporter points out that many heart attacks strike people who do not have very high cholesterol levels or other indicators of elevated risk, but also that “no study has linked the use of CT scans with better patient outcomes.”   The potential cancer risk caused by CT screening for signs of heart disease is the point of this story. Also, by highlighting uncertainty about the benefits of the screening and recapping debate over the Texas law mandating coverage of the scans, the story emphasizes the importance of considering potential harms when setting public policy on screening tests. A longer story could have considered other potential harms, including the side effects of treatments prescribed based on screening tests. The story does a good job of summarizing the results of this study of potential cancer risk from CT screening. In addition, it outlines the positions of experts and organizations on the broader body of evidence on the use of CT scans to identify people who may have plaque buildups in their heart arteries. It would have been better if the reporter stated that the estimate was based on several assumptions, that it wasn’t a definitive point estimate, but just the center of a range, and that it was higher than earlier estimates. Readers still got the point that there is a cancer risk which needs to be considered. The story notes that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S., but it also points out doubts about whether screening with CT scans for calcium buildup in heart arteries can reduce the toll. The story includes experts and advocates that represent the key perspectives in debate about CT screening for calcium deposits in coronary arteries. However, it does not include information on possible conflicts of interest. Although this story points out that alternative screening techniques are available and it makes reference to cholesterol, it does not include any details about the alternatives. The story says that the CT scanners used for this test are “all over the city” and included an estimate that in 2008 about 200,000 people around the country were scanned for calcium buildups in their coronary arteries. not in question in this story The story includes quotes from independent experts and other information that was not in the news release about the journal article.

Output: Warning sounded on heart scan law


Input: Consider Input: Knox County’s proposed ordinance hasn’t been drafted yet, but County Attorney Yvette Kirchoff said the ordinance wouldn’t be retroactive so homeowners won’t have to remove existing plants. If the measure is approved, Knox County would be the first in Indiana to move forward with such an ordinance, Kirchoff told the Vincennes Sun-Commercial . Invasive species can take over and alter environments, said Will Drews, a natural resource specialist with the Knox County Soil and Water Conservation District. They can also disrupt pasture lands and agriculture. “We’ve introduced most of them, unfortunately, over time,” he said. “They’re mostly from other parts of the world, such as Europe or Asia, and the problem is that they have no natural predators, so they just kind of get out of control.” One major issue is that some invasive species — such as wintercreeper, Japanese honeysuckle and burning bush — can be found in local nurseries and are used by landscapers, Drews said. “These are plants that are literally destroying our forests,” Drews said. “That’s frustrating to a lot of the folks that I work with and those who are aware of the problem.” The state Department of Natural Resources and state lawmakers have been working on legislation that would attempt to regulate the spread of invasive species, but the process has been slow, Drews said. Drews and Kirchoff are drafting the ordinance and will present it to the county commissioners soon. ___ Information from: Vincennes Sun-Commercial, http://www.vincennes.com

Output: Indiana county working on invasive plants ordinance.


Input: Consider Input: There is no mention of costs in the release. Some mention of costs would have been useful and could have taken a number of different forms such as how the cost of these drugs would compare to buying cigarettes on a daily basis, comparing the drug price to other tools for quitting smoking, or providing cost estimates of treating smoking-related diseases. The release may overstate things in the headline which claims, “An FDA-approved Alzheimer’s drug could help smokers quit.” The study didn’t look at quit rates and lasted only 23 days, so the effect on quitting is entirely unknown. We’ll give the benefit of the doubt here though since the release notes that people involved in the trials (there was also an animal trial component) reduced their cigarette use by 2.3 cigarettes a day — a 12% decrease — after being on the drug for two weeks. The volunteers also related that they felt “less satisfied” with smoking after being on the drug, although this benefit was not quantified. The release notes that people may become ill when taking the AD drugs. A source is quoted in the release says, “We know from the literature that upward of 30 percent of patients will report nausea and vomiting [when taking these drugs], and that this will limit their compliance.” The news release gives a fairly clear description of the study parameters. The study, while small with 33 volunteers, involved giving the still-smoking participants either the drug galantamine or a placebo for two weeks and then asked them to refrain from smoking for one week while on either their prescribed galantamine or placebo. The researchers measured cognitive abilities at baseline and after two weeks on the drug to determine if the drug helped reduce side effects people normally encounter while withdrawing off tobacco. The release is clear that much more evidence will be available, including on overall quit rates (the most important and relevant outcome), when the full study is completed. There is really not much of a take-away at this point as the information is so incomplete. It would be difficult to overstate the harms of cigarette smoking. The release does not engage in fear mongering. The release doesn’t explicitly state who funded the study or if there were any conflicts of interest. However, it’s strongly inferred that Penn’s Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction is the main sponsor. The study itself states that the research received funding from several government and non-profit research organizations and that there were no conflicts of interest. This is not a major omission but must be rated Not Satisfactory. The release nods briefly to the existence of other medications for smoking cessation and how galantamine would differ. “Our goal in investigating these different repurposed medications is not to replace the medications that are already available,” she said. “We know that they’re effective. Our goal is to target different populations of smokers who may be more likely to experience these cognitive deficits.” Although it doesn’t specifically mention any other smoking cessation tools and techniques by name or discuss how successful galantamine might be in comparison, we’ll give the benefit of the doubt. The story states that galantamine is FDA approved which speaks to its availability. The release responsibly points out that “There’s no data to suggest that a clinician treating a smoker should prescribe one of these AChEIs now,” according to the lead investigator. The news release makes a tepid reference to novelty with the phrase that researchers are “forging a path” with this research. The study itself says, “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first translational study to demonstrate that repeated AChEI administration decreases nicotine taking in both rats and human smokers.” While this may well be the first “translational” study on this question, a look on PubMed shows that quite a lot has been done in rats on nicotine and the cholinesterase inhibitor drugs. There has been much less in humans, although trials have been done, with mixed success, such as this modestly successful one in alcoholics. (A randomized, controlled trial in 114 patients for 12 weeks, it showed those on galantamine smoked 20% fewer cigarettes than those on placebo.) To earn a Satisfactory rating, we think the release should have acknowledged some of this previous research. There was no reliance on unjustifiable language.


Output: Penn research: An FDA-approved Alzheimer's drug could help smokers quit