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: 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


Input: Consider Input: Although this therapy is not yet available for patient use, the story makes a point of noting that the cost may well be “stratospheric,” should it make it to market. If approved, such treatments are expected to command stratospheric prices. For example, a separate Spark gene therapy for a rare type of childhood blindness, which is on track for Food and Drug Administration clearance soon, could cost $1 million per patient for infusions in both eyes, according to some Wall Street analysts. Still, the therapies can produce at least some offsetting savings. Porteus noted in his editorial that the hemophilia therapy resulted in savings of about $200,000 a year per patient because of the elimination of clotting-factor infusions. The story summarizes the outcome of the small, 10-person trial that dominates this narrative: Lindsey George, the lead investigator and a hematologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said that nine of the 10 men in the trial didn’t experience any bleeding episodes after the gene therapy treatment. The one patient who needed clotting factor because of bleeding used 91 percent less than before, she said. Although the story does not address harms directly–and should have–it does note that one of the worrying side effects of gene therapy—spurring the body to attack itself—was not present in this study. It is clear from the story that the study is small and an “early-stage trial.” One source also notes that the researchers tracked individuals in the study for no more than a year and a half, making longer term assessments unavailable. The story could have done more, though, to signal to the reader that, despite the encouraging outcomes of the study, the treatment is still very much under development. The next stage—Phase 3 trials—requires more participants, more careful study design, and takes, on average, three years to complete. The treatment described here, if ultimately proved worthy, could have a profound impact on a serious genetic condition. Independent sources are identified in the story, as are the funders. But missing from the text is information describing linkages between the two funders—Spark Therapeutics and Pfizer—and the lead researchers. It’s not clear from the story that there is a financial relationship. Individuals coping with hemophilia B have few options, and the story describes the main one: injections of blood-clotting factor to stem runaway bleeding. Since the story notes that the research is at an early stage with only 10 participants, a reader can easily infer that the treatment is not yet available. However, additional information about remaining evaluation stages for this treatment would have been a useful reinforcing addition. Hemophilia B sufferers who see this story will likely be contacting their doctors. The story establishes novelty with this: The researchers presented earlier findings on the gene therapy a year ago at the American Society of Hematology’s annual meeting, but the latest data covers a larger patient group and a longer time period. A news release issued by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia did a good job of describing this study; the Post story could have picked up more of the salient details from that text but reveals independent reporting nevertheless by including sources not connected to the study.

Output: Gene therapy makes a big advance treating hemophilia B blood disorder


Input: Consider Input: "Assembly Democrats want to guarantee access to abortion for New York state residents if the Supreme Court overturns the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. A bill, commonly referred to as the Reproductive Health Act, would change state law to guarantee women the choice to have or refuse an abortion or contraception if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade. Different versions of the bill have been introduced for at least seven years in the Legislature. This year’s debate over the measure included tough questions to the bill’s sponsor, Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick, from members opposed to the bill. ""So, if a baby is born intact and alive but has not yet taken its first breath, it has no rights?"" Assemblymember Steven F. McLaughlin asked. ""Is that the position you are taking?"" ""New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe,"" Glick said. ""That’s not me, that’s just the law."" Is Glick right? Is that the law? State abortion law Glick said her definition comes from the current state law on abortion. The definition is included in the state’s penal law, or criminal code, which defines the crime of abortion, where someone intentionally causes a pregnancy to be terminated without consent or justification. The law says a person, ""when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive."" So a fetus inside the womb is not considered a person, and therefore does not have rights under state law. That is why someone can legally have an abortion after being pregnant for 24 weeks to preserve the life of the mother. State health law State health law goes a step further in defining when someone is considered born. Under Public Health Law, live birth is defined as ""the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered live born."" It is up to a medical professional to determine if there is evidence of life in the infant. If the medical professional finds evidence, it is legally considered the birth of a person. ""The reality is that if they are born and alive they are a person and have full rights,"" Glick said in a phone interview. ""And that is the determination of a medical person at the time."" Our ruling Glick said during an Assembly debate that ""New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe."" State law says a person has been born alive when the fetus has exited the woman’s body and shows signs of life. The law specifically mentions breathing as one of the signs. But the law also mentions other evidence of life, such as a beating heart.s ."


Output: New York state law says you are alive when you begin to breathe.