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.

Ex Input:
No mention of costs The story quantifies the benefits in terms of survival for both intravenous and intraperitoneal chemotherapy. The story gives us balanced information on harms, including the very serious side effects which led to less than half the study population adhering to the full course of chemo. The story accurately represents the nature of the clinical evidence, that this was a controlled trial with 415 women. It should have been more clear that it was a randomized trial. The story accurately represents the prevalence of ovarian cancer and the survival. Independent source is quoted. The author does mention intravenous chemotherapy as the alternative and explains the advantages and disadvantages of the new approach. Clearly this treatment is available in the U.S., but it’s not clear how widely available it is and how many oncologists have experience using it. The story does not mention if the treatment is new or not.

Ex Output:
Treatment brings hope for ovarian cancer


Ex Input:
“They are heroic, I think there is no other way to describe what they are doing at this moment,” said Howard Catton, a British nurse who is the ICN’s chief executive officer. Infection rates of 9% and 12-14% have been reported among health workers in Italy and Spain, respectively, and deaths among nurses there and in Iran and Indonesia, he said. “We have no doubt that the rate of infections is related in part to the lack of PPE - personal protective equipment,” he told Reuters at the ICN offices along Lake Geneva. “There is a global shortage and nurses obviously are at a higher risk given the people that they are caring for.”  The federation represents 130 national associations and more than 20 million registered nurses. The World Health Organization has called repeatedly for countries and manufacturers to step up production of masks, gloves, gowns and other equipment for vulnerable health workers amidst critical shortages. Nearly 700,000 people have been infected worldwide in the outbreak that began last December in China and has claimed more than 33,000 lives, according to the WHO. Catton said there had been problems with supply chains in hard-hit Italy and Spain, describing their health systems as “very close to being overwhelmed”. Nurses worldwide take samples from COVID-19 patients, give them medicines and oxygen, and help incubate those in serious condition. “They are working under intense pressure, often long hours, some working back-to-back shifts for days on end, even sleeping over in the hospital, the facility, in which they work.”  Some nurses have been forced to re-use their gear or make their own masks and gowns, he added. “Wearing personal protective equipment when it is available is not easy either...Simple things like going to the loo and eating are of course much more difficult,” he said. Nurses across Africa and South Asia could be at greater risk as the virus moves to poorer settings. “We are very concerned that those countries that have weaker, more fragile health care systems could very quickly become overwhelmed by this virus if it takes hold in their countries,” Catton said. Nurses in Zimbabwe, fearing for their own safety, have been on strike due to a lack of information and protective gear, he said.

Ex Output:
Heroic nurses need full protection against coronavirus, association says.


Ex Input:
Costs are mentioned reasonably early in the story, and with specificity. This was good to see. Benefits of these tests are touted, but not quantified. An officer of the National Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance, an advocacy group, testifies that the outcomes of women who have surgery from a gynecologic oncologist “are much better.” But we don’t know what that means. Is it longer survival? Later the story explains that combining the two blood tests with assessment by a clinician “better determined the patients who should be referred to a [gynecological oncologist], identifying well over 90 percent of the women who actually had cancer.”  (Note that this statistic reflects only referral to a gyn-onc, not patient survival.) But how does that compare to the standard assessment tools? A 2016 study described as publication “of the first clinical utility data” demonstrating that use of OVA1 resulted in referral of ovarian patients to gynecologic oncologists offers similar outcomes but is not mentioned in the story. We’re told that experts fear that these tests could lead to unnecessary surgery or delayed diagnosis, and that’s sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story could have delved into a bit more of the specifics: What is the evidence for these concerns? What are the false positive and false negative rates? These details are useful because the point of the story is that clinicians are not using these tests to try to improve outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. Are the possible debits–or uncertainties driven by lack of clinical data–contributing to these decisions? There isn’t sufficient information on the evidence behind these tests. The FDA has approved ROMA and OVA1 for use, but the studies that led to that decision are not discussed. Nor is there sufficient discussion of why the physician groups that write guidelines haven’t endorsed the tests. Their concerns are raised, but the evidence is not presented or analyzed. A late diagnosis of ovarian cancer is way too common, and the outcome is grim. At the same time, the anecdotes seem to highlight the sad aspect of the disease without necessarily providing a relevant case in which the tests described would have helped (any more than a basic blood test would have). The companies responsible for developing and marketing these two tests are front and center in this story, with scientists affiliated with the companies clearly identified. At least two sources in the story—one of them a scientist affiliated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network—appear to be independent of the companies. The story makes it clear that no effective early detection screening test exists. Existing strategies—the CA125 blood test and vaginal ultrasound—are mentioned and then discounted, in part via a personal narrative of a young woman who received a late diagnosis of cancer. While data-driven specifics aren’t included on why standard methods aren’t sufficient, this is enough to rate Satisfactory. A direct comparison of survival stemming from existing diagnostic tests relative to survival stemming from ROMA and OVA1 would have strengthened the story. If those numbers aren’t available, that should have been pointed out. The story makes it clear that the two blood tests have been available since 2009. The story mentions that the tests are combinations of existing tests with a “proprietary” formula (essentially a risk prediction tool) to translate the results to likelihood of cancer. But, the article should have talked about whether the tests, other than CA-125, have been used before. This appears to be an enterprise story, and does not rely on a news release.

Ex Output:

Ovarian cancer blood tests: Available, not widely used