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 University of Kansas will have what it says is the smallest four-year medical education site in the country when eight students begin taking classes on Monday on a satellite campus in Salina, Kansas. The move is in response to a shortage of rural doctors in the United States. “By training physicians in a nonmetropolitan area, we are showing young medical students that life can be good, and practice can be stimulating, outside of the big city,” said Dr. William Cathcart-Rake, the physician who directs the University of Kansas School of Medicine-Salina. Students will get some course work via tele-video and podcasts from the school’s other campuses, but they will also train through visits to doctors’ offices in small communities and at the hospital in Salina, school officials said. “It’s a bold and innovative move,” said Dr. Roland Goertz, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. He said students at rural clinics will be exposed to a potential medical career they wouldn’t see in urban hospital settings. Cathcart-Rake said six of the eight students being taught at Salina, as part of their scholarships, have committed to practicing in a rural area. Seven of the eight students are from rural areas to begin with, he said. “They see the value of living in wide open spaces and going back to where their friends are,” Cathcart-Rake said. Attending medical school in a place such as Salina reduces chances they will change their minds, which could happen if they went to a big-city school, he said. Salina, with 46,000 residents, is about 175 miles west of the Kansas City metropolitan region where the university’s main medical school is located. Small-town America has become increasingly under-served by doctors. About 21 percent of U.S. residents live in rural regions but only about 10 percent of physicians practice there, according to data cited by the family physicians group. In Kansas, 12 counties don’t have a full-time doctor at all, said Barbara Atkinson, executive dean of the University of Kansas School of Medicine. Several factors are often cited for a shortage of rural doctors. Rural doctors tend to be paid less, partly because they are more likely to treat patients on Medicare and Medicaid, which reimburses at rates below standard insurance. General practitioners make up the largest share of rural doctors, but until recent years fewer medical students were going into general medicine, putting a strain on rural care. Older doctors who practice in small towns and retire are sometimes not replaced because younger doctors may prefer the greater cultural amenities urban regions tend to offer. Recent changes in federal healthcare laws are intended to make rural practice more acceptable to doctors. Doctors who practice in certain underserved areas will get bonuses beyond the 10 percent boost in Medicare reimbursements they were already receiving, Goertz said. He said another reason why there are fewer rural doctors is that the large majority of medical students come from urban areas, where medical schools are usually located, making them less like to consider rural medicine. “You tend to gravitate to where you grew up,” Goertz said. Cathcart-Rake is optimistic that the Salina medical school will be a success and that in future years admissions may grow from eight to 12 students.

Output: Rural doctor shortage prompts opening of medical school.


Input: Consider Input: The story does not mention the costs of screening or follow-up tests or treatment – to the individual or, collectively, to society. Those costs are significant. This story uses several different statistics and expert perspectives to explain what the researchers found in their examination of the effects of mammography screening. It not only include the relative risk reduction (10 percent) and an absolute risk reduction statistic (among women in their 50s, a decade of screening would boost the likelihood of avoiding a fatal breast cancer from 995.6 out of 1,000 to 996 out of 1,000), but it also offered comments from different experts about how they would personally value effects of that size. The story notes that screening mammography exposes women to false alarms scares as well as the risks and harms of treating tumors that actually would not have become life-threatening. This story explains how this study is different from earlier research on mammography. It points out both advantages of the study methods (comparing women in regions with screening to those without as Norway rolled out a national program over a 9 year period) and limitations (an observational study like this is not as powerful as a randomized trial, and the study might have found more benefits to screening if it had lasted longer). The story also noted the uncertainty in the numbers the researchers reported and that the real differences might be different. The story does not exaggerate the risk of breast cancer or the need to be screened for it. The story includes comments from several independent sources offering a variety of perspectives. It does not mention that the study was funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. The story notes that improved treatments appear to have reduced the breast cancer death rate even among women who did not have regular screening mammograms. Not being screened was clearly acknowledged as an alternative, something not all competing stories explicitly addressed. The availability of mammography screening is not at issue. This story does point out that the women who were screened in Norway had access to special treatment teams. And it noted that these treatments are available at “many major medical centers in the United States.”  Mammography is not new, but this story does a good job of explaining what is new about the way these researchers examined the effects of screening. The story includes comments from several sources and does not appear to rely on a news release.

Output: Mammogramsâ€™ Value in Cancer Fight at Issue


Input: Consider Input: The drug fully eradicated medulloblastoma tumors in mice in 2004. But further testing showed it caused permanent bone damage in immature mice, Tom Curran of The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues found. Writing in the journal Cancer Cell, they said the drug, known by its experimental name HhAntag, will need to be developed with caution. And, they said, similar drugs will need careful testing. HhAntag, made by California-based Genentech, affects a gene called Hedgehog, involved in both normal development and in cancer. It is a so-called signal transduction inhibitor, designed to interrupt Hedgehog’s cancer-causing effects. Several such drugs are currently in pediatric clinical trials. “While it is not clear that the bone defects we observed in mice would also occur in children, and while signal transduction inhibitors may still represent a highly promising approach to treating pediatric cancer, it may be important to perform preclinical testing in young animals before moving ahead to clinical trials,” Curran said in a statement. Medulloblastomas account for about one in five childhood brain tumors. “Current therapy, involving a combination of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, is relatively successful with a five year survival rate of 78 percent,” Curran’s team wrote. “However, the prognosis is much worse for patients younger than 3 and in older patients with metastatic disease.”    The Hedgehog-inhibiting drugs had been considered a promising new approach for these young patients. But even brief use of the drug in 10- to 14-day-old mice caused permanent damage, Curran found. “We already knew that the same biological pathway involved in the growth of tumors was also involved in bone development but we did not expect temporary inhibition to cause an irreversible change in bone growth,” Curran said. It may be possible to find a way to protect the growing bones of children and still use the drug, Curran said. “Thus, although the impact of a brief suppression of Hedgehog pathway on bone development in mice is quite striking, this should not preclude attempts to develop a highly promising anti-cancer treatment for pediatric medulloblastoma,” his team concluded.


Output: Promising Cancer Drug May Endanger Child's Bones.