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: Since this story doesn’t make claims about efficacy, costs don’t seem applicable. We give this story a satisfactory score, but the story could have helped readers understand why measuring surrogate markers such as homocysteine levels can be different than tracking true outcomes such as heart attack or stroke. Here, the surrogate endpoint (homocysteine levels) “improved,” but the real endpoint – heart attack and stroke – did not. There is no discussion of any harms associated with consumption of vitamin B supplements, although such harms would occur from vitamin B intake unlike that studied, so this gets a satisfactory grade. Two of the three studies referred to in the journal article are detailed; a brief reference is given for the third. In addition to the discussion of the studies, a quote was pulled from an editorial in the journal that published the studies. No other treatment options for lowering risk of heart attacks or strokes are mentioned. It’s clear from the story that B vitamins have been in use for some time by many people for these purposes. It’s clear from the story that B vitamins have been in use for some time by many people for these purposes. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Example Output: Study: Heart attacks not cut by B vitamins

Example Input: Publishing a study that found risk score tools are only around 46 percent accurate on how likely psychopathic convicts are to kill, rape or assault again, they said probation officers and judges should set little or no store by such tests. They warned that clinicians carrying out such classifications must be aware of their severe limitations, and make sure prisoners undergo comprehensive psychiatric diagnosis before any risks assessment is made. “If you apply these (tests) to somebody who is a psychopath, they’re utterly useless, you might as well toss a coin,” said Jeremy Coid, director of the forensic psychiatry research unit at Queen Mary University of London who led the study. “They will not predict accurately at all,” he told reporters at a briefing in London about his findings. Coid and other forensic psychiatrists say the findings - which also showed the tools perform only moderately well in prisoners with disorders like schizophrenia, depression, drug and alcohol dependence - could have major implications for risk assessment in criminal justice systems. “There are increasing expectations of public protection from violent behavior, and psychiatrists can be seriously criticized if they make wrong decisions,” he said. Seena Fazel, a consultant forensic psychiatrist at Britain’s University of Oxford, said the reliability of the tests’ predictive ability was so low that it might be best not to use them at all - and warned that at the very least, their results should only be noted by parole boards, rather than acted upon. “If you’re going to use these instruments, be aware of their strengths and limitations,” he told reporters. The estimated prevalence of adult psychopathy in the general population is around 1 percent, but that rises to between 15 percent and 25 percent among men in prison. Coid, whose study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, analyzed data from 1,396 male prisoners in England and Wales who were interviewed between six and 12 months before their release. All the men were serving sentences of two or more years for a sexual or violent offences. The prisoners were assessed for personality disorders, symptoms of schizophrenia, depression and drug and alcohol dependence, as well as being measured for psychopathy on a reputable scale known as Hare Psychopathy Check List. After their release, data on their re-offending rates was added to the study, and showed that among three different re-offending risk assessment tools used before their release, the accuracy among psychopaths was below 50 percent. While the tools were more accurate in predictions for prisoners with no mental health disorders - at around 75 percent accuracy - they were only around 60 percent right when it came to prisoners diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression. For prisoners with anti-social personality disorders the predictive value of the tests ranged from poor to little more than chance, with an average 53.2 percent predictive accuracy. And for the 70 prisoners rated as psychopathic, none of the tests was statistically better than chance. Coid said the results suggest it is time to question the expectations put on psychiatrists and psychologists asked to forecast future behavior of offenders, and to consider what can happen to their reputations if predictions are wrong. “The easy solution is to be highly restrictive on who is released, and be risk averse. However, even for serious offenders, most will be released at some stage and someone has to carry out a risk assessment,” he said. “We need to prioritize the development of new assessment tools for these hard-to-predict groups.”
Example Output: Predicting violence in psychopaths is 'no more than chance'.

Example Input: While absolute costs of the new drug are not given, the story does tell readers that older, cheaper drugs are less than 20 cents a day, which is 10 times less than the cost of the newer drug. The story provides absolute rates of death, heart attack, or stroke in those taking Actos and in those taking placebo or other diabetes drugs. We applaud the reporter for using absolute -not relative – rates. Not all potential harms associated with Actos are mentioned. Heart failure is one harm and is mentioned. Yet, no absolute data is provided about how often heart failure occurs or how serious it may be. There are also other harms that are not mentioned at all. The article tells readers the findings are based on a review of pooled results from 19 studies that compared the drug to either placebo, or sugar pill, or other diabetes drugs. The article also mentions the study was funded by the drug manufacturer. There is very little information about diabetes given, but one key point is mentioned–that heart attacks are a leading cause of death in people with diabetes. This fact provides context to the discussion of risks and benefits of these newer drugs. Although more background info could have been provided about diabetes itself, there is nothing misstated or embellished. The story obtains multiple sources of information, including from at least one source not connected with the research. The story mentions at least one drug alternative (metformin) to the newer drugs, but fails to mention others. The story also fails to mention lifestyle interventions, such as diet, exercise, and weight loss to help control blood sugar and other risk factors for diabetes complications. The article describes that the diabetes drug studied (Actos or pioglitazone) has been around and used by more than 7 million people since its introduction in 1999. The story tells readers Actos is part of a newer class drugs and tells readers this drug has been on the market since 1999. The story obtains quotes from sources not linked to the research and so it does not appear that this relies solely on a press release.
Example Output:
Analysis weighs benefits, risks of Actos