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.

The story should have stated how much CAD costs per mammogram, and how that compares to the costs of a radiologist or technician providing a second reading of the images. The story quotes a researcher saying cost-effectiveness needs to be studied. This should have triggered additional reporting comparing costs. The story says Medicare pays $15 per CAD reading, but this does not indicate whether this covers costs. The story does a good job of describing the methodology and the outcomes in terms readers can understand. The study results showed that the recall rates–the percentage of women brought back for a second mammogram–was signficantly higher with CAD than with double readings (3.9 percent vs. 3.5 percent). Yet CAD discovered no more cancers. These additional mammograms without more accurate diagnosis can produce increased anxiety and potentially more biopsies. The report should have mentioned this. This news report is based on a peer-reviewed study published in a top-tier medical journal. The underlying study itself is a randomized, blinded trial involving about 30,000 women. The story does nothing to exaggerate either the prevalence or severity of breast cancer, or the benefits of CAD. The reporter quotes the article itself, the lead author, a breast cancer clinician at a major teaching hospital, a medical society’s breast cancer expert, and a clinician who uses CAD in his practice. This is excellent sourcing. The story reports the study’s funding, as well as two of the researchers’ links to CAD makers. The story clearly compares the options of having two human readers of mammograms against one reader using CAD. Yet the reporter fails to compare the value of these methods with those when a single human reader is used, which remains the common practice in the U.S. The study reports that double readings have been shown to be 4 to 14 percent more effective in detecting cancers than single readings, with a recent meta-analysis showing a 10 percent advantage to double reading. This context would have been very valuable, to demonstrate that U.S. diagnostic practices miss a lot of cancers. The story states that computer-aided dectection (CAD) of breast cancer is used for about a third of mammograms in the U.S. This implies availability at more specialized facilities and teaching hospitals. A more direct statement of this would have been useful. But the story meets minimum standards under this criterion. The story says CAD is used for about one-third of mammograms in the U.S. and is likely to be used more as digital imaging becomes more widespread. The report does not appear to draw on the press release.
Computers help docs spot breast cancer on X-rays

The company has since mid-March launched three coronavirus tests, including an antibody test crucial in identifying immunity among people and one that can deliver results within minutes, which was heralded as a game changer by President Donald Trump. Shares of the company were up 6% at $96.48 in morning trading. Despite the strong uptake in coronavirus testing, the cancellation of non-essential surgeries and restrictions on people’s movement are expected to severely crimp sales of its medical devices and other lab tests, which contribute to more than half of total quarterly revenue. “(The second quarter) will likely be our toughest quarter in the year, especially for our core lab business, our cardio and neuro businesses,” Chief Executive Officer Robert Ford said on a post-earnings call. The company suspended its full-year forecast due to the uncertainty caused by the health crisis and said it expects to provide an update in the second half of the year. Abbott projected a recovery in elective procedures and testing volumes globally from the third quarter and said it was seeing signs of stabilization in China and areas where the outbreak has begun to abate. “We’re all hoping for a fast recovery here, but if it takes longer, we’ll have strong demand for testing and that will continue to help buffer the impact,” Ford said. Elective procedure declines were at the core of Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ.N) decision to cut 2020 forecasts on Tuesday, with recovery expected in the second half of the year. Abbott beat first-quarter earnings expectations as shelter-in-place restrictions imposed by U.S. states boosted demand for nutrition products for children such as PediaSure, lifting sales in the unit by 6.3% to $1.90 billion. Results were also boosted by a strong flu season before the outbreak that helped minimize testing declines and on softer-than-expected COVID-19 impact across businesses, said J.P. Morgan analyst Robbie Marcus. Sales in the diagnostics unit fell nearly 1% to $1.83 billion, while demand for its FreeStyle Libre diabetes monitoring device remained strong fueled by expanded insurance coverage in Japan. Sales of the device surged 60% to over $600 million. Excluding items, the company earned 65 cents per share, beating expectation of 58 cents. Net sales of $7.73 billion also topped estimates of $7.34 billion.
Coronavirus test ramp-up to help Abbott weather 'toughest quarter'.

"The story does not discuss costs and should have. If colonscopy is not providing that value that people once thought, it should be examined from a cost basis as well. Since fecal occult blood stool slide testing is so much cheaper (something referenced in the story but without cost estimates given), this is an even more important issue. The story includes a lot of numbers and, for this reason, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion although we would have liked to have seen more numbers in absolute terms. Saying that women had a 30 percent higher chance of having their cancers missed, for example, sounds like cause for a significant health policy overhaul. But what does that mean in hard numbers? How many women were included in this study, for one. And what was the ratio of missed cancers for them? We’re told 1 in 13 overall, but what was the breakdown for men and for women? It also would have been helpful to see the absolute numbers by gastroenterologist versus primary care physician, as the skill set of the person operating the colonscopy also appears to be a factor. The story does not quantify potential harms from colonscopies, such as colon perforation. The story does a good job of evaluating the quality of the evidence. The writer includes sufficient detail about the study, including the ages of people screened, the total number, the years screened, and other important facts. The story does not engage in disease-mongering. Some mention of how often people live with polyps that don’t become cancer or that, in the later stages of life, don’t merit the risk of a procedure. This story includes two independent sources to great effect. Without their commentary, readers might be inclined to doubt the results of their colonscopies or seek repeated screenings beyond the recommended schedule. In a short amount of space, this story was able to bring in some valuable perspective on an important study. The story says, ""Another less expensive test is fecal occult blood testing, which involves taking stool specimens at home and mailing them to the doctor’s office or medical lab. The US Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of medical experts appointed by the federal government, recommends screening people aged 50 to 75 for the disease, but does not specify which test is best."" There could have been some mention of how effective fecal occult blood testing is and whether similar studies have been done on that type of screening. The story makes it clear that the screening is widely available and is the standard. The story makes it clear that colonoscopy is the dominant screening for colon cancer. This story does not rely on a news release."

Colonoscopy may miss more than 7 percent of cancers