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.

Example Input: But the number of people in intensive care units fell to 6,730 from 6,821 over 24 hours - declining for a sixth consecutive day, suggesting the national lockdown put in place on March 17 is having some success in containing the disease. On Monday, President Emmanuel Macron announced a second extension of this lockdown until May 11, saying that progress had been made but also that the country had not been sufficiently prepared early on to surmount the challenges posed by the outbreak of the new coronavirus. Jerome Salomon, head of the public health authority, told a news conference that the number of COVID-19 deaths in French hospitals and nursing homes had risen by 5% in a day to a cumulative total of 15,729, versus 4% on Monday and Sunday. He added that the total number of confirmed infections had climbed by 5.3% to 103,573, compared to a rate of increase of 2.8% on Monday and of 1.7% on Sunday. There were also 26,680 suspected coronavirus cases in nursing homes, taking the total to more than 130,000 confirmed and possible cases, the fifth highest in the world. According to various running simulations, Salomon said that, depending on calculations for different regions, 5%-10% of the French population had probably contracted the disease.
Example Output: France's rate of coronavirus infections, deaths accelerating again.

Example Input: Although there was no discussion of costs, the article was clear in stating that vaccines are for the most part in an early stage of development, so this omission is understandable. We wanted to see better coverage of the data here. The story leads with an anecdote about a patient who kicked a pack-a-day smoking habit after treatment with a nicotine vaccine in a study. And later, the story says that smokers who received that vaccine were “about three times as likely to be off cigarettes 44 weeks after vaccination than subjects given a placebo.” The story should have provided the absolute rates of success reported in the study, which were only 16% for the treatment group compared with 6% for the placebo group, according to theheart.org. Elsewhere, the story describes an experimental anticocaine vaccine that was apparently very effective in a mouse study; it could have reported on phase II human data that is available for the TA-CD anticocaine vaccine that was also mentioned in the story. These data again suggest that only a minority of patients may benefit from the use of anti-addiction vaccines. The story states that “clinical trials have so far revealed no significant side effects” from vaccine treatments. However, we think the story should have included an important caveat: that these are early stage trials involving small numbers of patients that can’t provide conclusive evidence of safety. In addition, it should be recognized that addictions are chronic conditions and these vaccine treatments are likely to be long-term as well. Therefore, longer-term adverse effects should be expected, especially for a treatment that interferes with molecules closely related to the body’s natural chemical messengers. The story could have been a bit more circumspect on this point. The promise of this new vaccine technology is counterbalanced by coverage of the uncertainties. The story gives appropriate weight to the disappointing results reported in a number of early clinical studies, noting: “Failures have so far outnumbered successes.” The story adds that even in one of the successful vaccine studies, the benefits were not as robust as those seen with a smoking cessation drug that is already on the market. There also is no prospect for a vaccine to treat alcoholism, according to the story. The article should have been more direct about the limitations of mouse research, and there was not enough detail on the data published in the various studies reported on (a deficiency we address under the “Benefits” criterion). However, since the story was trying to present a broad overview of happenings in the field and wasn’t attempting to summarize any particular study, we’ll give the benefit of the doubt here and award a satisfactory. The story didn’t exaggerate the effects of substance abuse disorders or otherwise engage in disease-mongering. The sourcing of this story was good. We hear from academics, government researchers, and industry executives. Their voices provide balance and give texture to the coverage. It should be noted, however, that most of these experts have a vested interest in the field or the success of a particular treatment, whether because of industry ties or because they are leading experiments on a particular approach. Even the government experts might be biased by their provision of significant financial support for research in this area. It would have been nice to hear a comment about the vaccines from someone who is certifiably free of all potential conflicts. But we can’t justify docking points since there is no voice that is overly enthusiastic about the concept. The story compares the potential of vaccines with the benefits of existing medications for addiction–and notes that the available drugs might work better. We would like to have seen more ink given to the role of behavioral approaches in the management of addiction, which are supported by considerable evidence. However, the story does acknowledge that vaccines “would likely be used alongside psychological therapy.” We’ll call it good enough for a satisfactory. The article helpfully states that “It could be years, if ever, before any vaccines to treat addiction reach the market.” The article does a good job of describing how far along the various experimental vaccines mentioned in the article are in their development. Although the story could have provided more background on the history of anti-addiction vaccines (a heroin vaccine was explored in the 1970s), the treatments being explored now are different from anything currently available. So we don’t think this story overstates the novelty of the research. This story is not based on a news release.
Example Output: Quest for Vaccines to Treat Addiction

Example Input: Today, gene testing mostly focuses on rare mutations in one or a few genes, like those that cause cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease, or the BRCA gene responsible for a small fraction of breast cancer. It is less useful for some of the most common diseases, such as heart disease or diabetes, because they are influenced by vast numbers of genes-gone-wrong working together in complicated ways. Monday, researchers reported a new way to measure millions of small genetic variations that add up to cause harm, letting them calculate someone’s inherited risk for the most common form of heart disease and four other serious disorders. The potential cardiac impact: They estimated that up to 25 million Americans may have triple the average person’s risk for coronary artery disease even if they haven’t yet developed warning signs like high cholesterol. “What I foresee is in five years, each person will know this risk number, this ‘polygenic risk score,’ similar to the way each person knows his or her cholesterol,” said Dr. Sekar Kathiresan who led the research team from the Broad Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. If the approach pans out and doctors adopt it, a bad score wouldn’t mean you’d get a disease, just that your genetic makeup increases the chance — one more piece of information in deciding care. For example, when the researchers tested the system using a DNA database from Britain, less than 1 percent of people with the lowest risk scores were diagnosed with coronary artery disease, compared to 11 percent of people with the highest risk score. “There are things you can do to lower the risk,” Kathiresan said — the usual advice about diet, exercise, cholesterol medication and not smoking helps. On the flip side, a low-risk score “doesn’t give you a free pass,” he added. An unhealthy lifestyle could overwhelm the protection of good genes. The scoring system also can predict an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, breast cancer and an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation, the team reported in the journal Nature Genetics — noting that next steps include learning what might likewise lower those risks. It doesn’t require the most sophisticated type of genetic testing. Instead, Kathiresan can calculate risk scores for those five diseases — eventually maybe more — simply by reanalyzing the kind of raw data people receive after sending a cheek swab to companies like 23andMe. A geneticist who specializes in cardiovascular disease, he hopes to open a website where people can send in such data to learn their heart risk, as part of continuing research. Kathiresan and co-author Dr. Amit Khera, a Mass General cardiologist, are co-inventors on a patent application for the system. Other scientists and companies have long sought ways to measure risk from multiple, additive gene effects — the “poly” in polygenic — and Myriad Genetics has begun selling a type of polygenic test for breast cancer risk. But specialists in heart disease and genetics who weren’t involved with the research called the new findings exciting because of their scope. “The results should be eye-opening for cardiologists,” said Dr. Charles C. Hong, director of cardiovascular research at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. “The only disappointment is that this score applies only to those with European ancestry, so I wonder if similar scores are in the works for the large majority of the world population that is not white.” Hong pointed to a friend who recently died of a massive heart attack despite being a super-fit marathon runner who’d never smoked, the kind of puzzling death that doctors have long hoped that a better understanding of genetics could help to prevent. “Most of the variation in disease risk comes from an enormous number of very tiny effects” in genes, agreed Stanford University genetics professor Jonathan Pritchard. “This is the first time polygenic scores have really been shown to reach the level of precision where they can have an impact” on patient health. First, the Boston-based team combed previous studies that mapped the DNA of large numbers of people, looking for links to the five diseases — not outright mutations but minor misspellings in the genetic code. Each variation alone would have only a tiny effect on health. They developed a computerized system that analyzed how those effects add up, and tested it using DNA and medical records from 400,000 people stored in Britain’s UK Biobank. Scores more than three times the average person’s risk were deemed high. ___ The Associated Press Health & Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Example Output:
Multi-gene test may find risk for heart disease and more.