instruction:
Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.
question:
Paragraph: The story never mentions costs. Quantitative estimate is provided in relative frame only. The lead author of the study says that 1 to 9% of the plaque was gone, but we have no context for these numbers, nor do we know if this is clinically meaningful. No harms or side effects are mentioned. Although there is mention of a trial, so little information is provided that the viewer cannot evaluate the strength of the evidence. There is no obvious disease mongering. Only a single source, the lead author of the study, is quoted. Although there is mention of diet and exercise, there is no mention of the advantages/disadvantages of high-dose Crestor by comparison. There was also no mention of current practice – use of regular doses of statins. There is no explanation of the availability of Crestor. Is it FDA approved? Is it on the market? The story can’t assume that everyone knows. The story does not explain if the drug is new, old, investigational, or already approved. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. But only the lead author is interviewed. Claim: Encouraging news about reversing heart disease
answer:
0


question:
Paragraph: "No discussion of costs – a recurring and significant oversight. The claims of ""100% accuracy"" and that ""The investigators found that after just one laser treatment, misfiring ceased in 84 percent of the treated veins, and 90 percent remained inactive three months after treatment"" aren’t put into any meaningful context about what difference this made in patient outcomes. Of course, what can you possibly say about outcomes after just three months? Which is exactly the point of raising this issue at all. No discussion of harms. No discussion of the limitations of drawing conclusions from a study of just 27 people. No explanation of whether destroying misfiring cells with ""100% accuracy"" actually makes a difference in people’s lives and outcomes. No overt disease mongering. However, to say that ""about 2.2 million Americans currently live with an irregular heartbeat condition, known as atrial fibrillation"" in the same breath as describing a study of just 27 people may imply that this very small study has immediate ramifications for all 2.2 million. And it does not. Barely satisfactory. There’s actually no interview – only a rehash of what was published in a journal, restated from a news release. No independent source cited. Again, the comparison of the ""new approach"" with existing approaches is superficial and unhelpful. And there was no comparison of performance or outcomes data. Terribly incomplete on this point. It is never made clear whether the device and approach are still experimental or already in clinical use. The word ""new"" was used five times in the short story. Yet the real novelty of this approach is only scantily and insufficiently described – especially if the implication is that this has relevance for 2.2 million Americans. The story admits it’s based on an American Heart Association news release. There’s no sign of any independent reporting or vetting." Claim: Laser Used to Blast Away Cells Causing Irregular Heartbeat
answer:
0


question:
Paragraph: We won’t require a discussion of costs in this story because the use of zoledronic acid for early stage breast cancer is still up in the air. However, since the drug is already being sold for other indications, the story would have been better if it had told readers something about the costs of using the drug for approved indications. The story headline and lead muddled the main conclusion of the AZURE trial: that there was no survival benefit to adding zoledronic acid to standard therapy for women with early stage breast cancer. In contrast to the headline of this story saying that any benefit to younger women is “in question,” the other story we reviewed included a quote from the lead author of the study article saying that not only did younger patients get no benefit, “If anything, they are doing a little bit worse.” The story did accurately report that there may be some benefit to postmenopausal women, but the story should have been more cautious in presenting the results of the sub-group analysis. Overall, the thrust of the story didn’t appear to match the negative results that researchers reported. The article did  not mention any adverse effects associated with zoledronic acid. The story should have at least discussed the incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw bone—a serious complication affecting more than one percent of study subjects. The article never mentioned that roughly one percent of women taking zoledronic acid in this trial developed a serious side effect: confirmed osteonecrosis of the jawbone. And another half a percent of subjects may have developed this bone-destroying problem. Women weighing the pros and cons of zoledronic acid for early breast cancer—or for other indications such as metastatic breast cancer—would certainly want to take this potentially devastating side-effect into account in their decision-making. And it deserved mention in the article. The article provided an adequate description of the randomized trial. In addition, it offered readers background on an earlier trial, highlighting some possible reasons that trial produced different results. However, it appeared to overstate the power of a subgroup analysis to produce conclusive results; in this case that the drug may extend the lives of women with established menopause. To produce strong take-home messages, the results of subgroup analyses have to be tested in further clinical trials. The story did offer a statement from an independent expert to this effect further down the page—but never explicitly stated that subgroup analyses have inherent limitations. There was no hint of disease mongering in this article. The article used an independent source. Howeever, it failed to tell readers about the support provided by the pharmaceutical company that markets this drug or about speaker fees paid to the lead researcher. The story did point out that the women in this trial did receive standard therapy, though it did not specifically say what that treatment entails. We will give the story a satisfactory rating since it is not clear that there is a proven alternative that would provide the type of recurrence and survival benefits seen in a previous study of zoledronic acid for early stage breast cancer. The article did not clarify the regulatory status of zoledronic acid. The FDA has approved zoledronic acid as a treatment for metastatic breast cancer but not for early stage breast cancer. The article made it clear that zoledronic acid is already being used in routine clinical care for other indications. The article did not appear to be overly reliant on a news release. Claim: Drug’s benefit to younger breast cancer patients in question
answer:

1