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: There’s no discussion of cost, even to mention that statins are relatively inexpensive these days and are mostly generically available. To its credit, the article does mention the cost of a calcium scan. We learn that “anywhere from 50 to 200 healthy people need to take a statin daily to prevent a single heart attack for five years.” That’s helpful information. It also notes that the observed benefit is less for older patients. The story could have added that even those numbers might disputed by some experts who perceive no meaningful benefit. For example, one review found being on a statin does not help people with low risk for heart disease live longer. The story does a service by highlighting the harms of statins. It explains: “The most common side effect of these drugs is muscle pain, which usually goes away if patients stop taking the medicines. People taking statins are also at a higher risk of developing diabetes, which is harder to reverse.” It also mentions the potential for overtreatment with the use of coronary calcium scans. However, we wish it had included absolute numbers. The story says harms are “uncommon,” but provides no data to back that up. Rates of adverse effects with statins have been measured at 1 to 10%, which makes them “common” in the definition of the European Medicines Agency. Also noteworthy is that some contend that adverse effects of statins have not been reliably reported. The story doesn’t explain the quality of the study, or of studies on which current guidelines are based. We don’t explicitly learn that this is a modelling study. In other words, this study consisted mostly of reinterpretations of math, not re-evaluations of real-life patients. The researchers said they were unable to obtain enough data on all possible harms and age-specific data on some harm outcomes, “so the risk thresholds we determined may still be too low.” There is no disease-mongering here. This story includes sources that weren’t involved in the study. The study’s authors reported no conflicts of interest. The story could have acknowledged the influence of pharmaceutical companies in creating guidelines for statin use. The alternative of not taking a statin was the key message here, and that’s laudable. However, we have a couple of concerns. First, we learn that “some statins were more effective than others, with atorvastatin (the generic name for Lipitor) being the best of the bunch.”  However, the story doesn’t explain on what basis some statins are “more effective.” In fact, some statins may be more effective at lower cholesterol, but the study found that no statin rises above others when it comes to the outcomes that counts most to patients — reducing cardiovascular deaths. Also, the story doesn’t mention lifestyle interventions — diet and exercise. The story makes it clear that statins are widely prescribed. The story states this an attempt to better weigh the benefits and harms of statin use. There was a good range of interviewees with no reliance on a news release

Output: Before Starting A Statin, Talk It Over With Your Doctor


Input: Consider Input: That’s when the 37-year-old nurse and mother got scared for her family. “I couldn’t sleep that night. I thought, ‘If I brought this home to my mom, she’s probably going to die, and it’s probably going to be my fault.’ So I had to find a different way,” Neuburger said. To protect her family, Neuburger moved from her parents’ home, where she had been living with her son after a recent divorce, and into a camper. Even though she doesn’t know when she’ll be able to hug her 11-year-old boy again, she’s glad she chose to self-isolate — especially since she began feeling sick five days after that hospital scare. Holed up in the camper as she awaits the results of a COVID-19 test, Neuburger is among countless doctors and nurses around the world who are choosing to move to hotels, tents, garages and other temporary housing to protect their loved ones — even as they risk exposing themselves to a virus that has claimed tens of thousands of lives, including a number of medical workers. Hotels, some business owners and people who run Airbnb rental homes are among those offering lodging, sometimes for free, to doctors and nurses needing to self-isolate. Social media is full of efforts to match medical professionals with temporary housing. One Facebook group, RVs 4 MDs, connects RV owners with medical workers. In Ireland, a real estate company has used Instagram to offer up empty flats. The extra layer of isolation means those who are risking their own health to save the lives of others are now sacrificing even more as they resign themselves to virtual contact with their kids, parents, spouses and others they would normally fall back on for emotional support during this stressful time. “It’s upsetting — even though you know it’s the right decision to leave your family,” said Mica Sosa, a floor nurse at an oncology unit at a Phoenix hospital, who moved into a friend’s empty condominium a few weeks ago. “It’s so bizarre to turn around and walk away from the people you normally run to.”  Events Sosa knows she will miss: Easter with her 4-year-old son; her mom’s 71st birthday; and her own 7th wedding anniversary. Some colleagues thought she was moving too soon. But with her mother’s age and her own husband in his 60s, Sosa didn’t want to wait until Phoenix had a surge in cases to take precautions. “Why wait until you are New York to get that radical? You need to protect yourself now,” she said. “I think everyone needs to look at their own family situation and decide what’s best for them.”  For most people, the new coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. But the virus can lead to more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death for some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems. Outside Portland, Maine, a pregnant Joy Engel is staying home with a toddler son while her husband, Dr. Ben Hagopian, lives in a friend’s empty in-law apartment. “We fought hard for this pregnancy and we weren’t willing to take the risk,” Engel said. For Neuburger, the gravity of the coronavirus took hold in one shift in the intensive care unit at the Minnesota hospital where she works. She felt her mask leaking as she cared for one patient, but she kept doing her job and switched to a protective respiratory device when she could. Then came the patient whose ventilator tube came apart. On the way home from work, she called her dad. She told him to take her son, Xander Ponkin, upstairs, while she went directly to the basement where she had been staying. She kept away from the rest of her family until she could move into a camper two days later. “My dad made me give him a hug even though I didn’t want to. He said, ‘What happens if you get sick and die? I won’t see you again,’” she said. She used Facebook to find the camper, and plans to pay its owner $200 a month. It’s now parked in the driveway of her former in-laws, who are caring for Xander, in the Twin Cities suburb of St. Paul Park. She has been able to play with him in the yard — at a distance. They also use video chat to play games, and she watches from her window as he shoots baskets outside. The hardest part, Neuburger said, is not being able to give him a hug. “I’m making the best of it. I’m trying to,” she said. “Sometimes I just sit here and cry. But then … I feel like I sleep better knowing I’m not possibly infecting my family.”  ___ Associated Press writer David Sharp in Portland, Maine, contributed to this report.

Output: Doctors, nurses leave homes to protect families from virus.


Input: Consider Input: None of the stories we reviewed gave readers sufficient information on the cost of the research scans used in the study. This story includes a comment from a researcher saying that increased use of this type of brain scan would bring the “high cost” down, but it doesn’t provide an estimate of the current cost or any comparison to alternative methods of assessing reading ability or other features of dyslexia. We will give this story a satisfactory rating because it portrays this research as providing information for researchers seeking to understand dyslexia, rather than offering important direct benefits to individuals. However, most of the story is about what it is like to live with dyslexia. These anecdotes have little or nothing to do with the research. The list of celebrities who may have or had dyslexia also seems irrelevant and distracting. Then the story tosses in discussion of a study that looked at correlations between dyslexia and spatial skills; again, unrelated to the topic of the primary study reported here. The jumble of extraneous personal tales and other research muddles the point of the story. MRI brain scans are generally considered to present little physical risk, so the issue here is really the potential negative effects of the information the test produces. At least the story raises that issue by including comments from parents who worry that this sort of scanning could further stigmatize children who have trouble reading or writing. This story fails to point out that the “children” studied were not beginning readers, but teenagers who were already identified as having dyslexia and may have been involved in special reading programs for many years. It also fails to mention several of the caveats and limitations that the researchers noted in their journal article, including the possibility that misclassification of the participants based on their initial testing could affect the results. In other words, rather than actually improving during the study, it is possible some of the teens were actually better readers from the beginning, but just scored low on the baseline tests. Nevertheless, the story appropriately describes this study as helping researchers to understand the disease, rather than evaluating the clinical usefulness of brain scans. Also, one paragraph deep in the story highlights the preliminary nature of the research; specifically that the study included only 25 participants with dyslexia, “which is too small a sample size to prove anything.” It also notes that the study did not look at whether different varieties or reading instruction or other interventions might have had some effect and it includes a comment from an independent expert about the lack of data on instruction or other factors that could influence reading ability. The story would have been better if the alert to the preliminary nature of the study had been near the top, rather than buried near the end. The story refers to estimates that between 5 percent and 20 percent of the population has dyslexia. Unlike the Reuters story we also reviewed, this story provides a useful definition of dyslexia as “a condition that, broadly speaking, hinders a person’s ability to interpret language.”  The story does include independent experts. Although it does not discuss conflicts of interest, the authors of the main study declared no conflicts and reported that their study was supported by a number of grants from public agencies and foundations, though the baseline assessment of the participants was supported by a company that markets treatment interventions for people with dyslexia. One troubling point: the story describes one person who claims to have been helped by “training at a learning development center.” If this individual was associated with the company that helped sponsor this research, the story should have disclosed that connection. The study authors wrote that although standardized tests did not accurately predict changes in reading ability during the study period, “it is possible that there are behavioral measures not included here that may predict outcome.” Indeed, their journal article specifically referred to other research into clinical testing that did appear to predict how children with poor reading skills responded to teaching. The story fails to make clear that the study reported here did not attempt to make a comprehensive comparison of the predictive power of scans and other methods of assessing children with reading problems. The story notes that the type of scan used in this study is not widely available. The story implies that this study is the first to suggest young people with dyslexia use a certain area of the right hemisphere of their brains more than average readers. Actually, the study authors pointed out that their research provides some additional data to support the findings of many other studies of differences between the brains of people with dyslexia and those who read normally. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.


Output: Dyslexia: Scanning the brain for clues