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:
The use of eDNA sampling is already well established as a tool for monitoring marine life like whales and sharks. Whenever a creature moves through its environment, it leaves behind tiny fragments of DNA from skin, scales, feathers, fur, faeces and urine. “This DNA can be captured, sequenced and then used to identify that creature by comparing the sequence obtained to large databases of known genetic sequences from hundreds of thousands of different organisms,” said team spokesman Professor Neil Gemmell of the University of Otago in New Zealand. The first written record of a monster relates to the Irish monk St Columba, who is said to have banished a “water beast” to the depths of the River Ness in the 6th century. The most famous picture of Nessie, known as the “surgeon’s photo”, was taken in 1934 and showed a head on a long neck emerging from the water. It was revealed 60 years later to have been a hoax that used a sea monster model attached to a toy submarine. Countless unsuccessful attempts to track down the monster have been made in the years since, notably in 2003 when the BBC funded an extensive scientific search that used 600 sonar beams and satellite tracking to sweep the full length of the loch. The most recent attempt was two years ago when a high-tech marine drone found a monster - but not the one it was looking for. The discovery turned out to be replica used in the 1970 film “The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes”, which sank nearly 50 years ago. Gemmell’s team, which comprises scientists from Britain, Denmark, the United States, Australia and France, is keen to stress the expedition is more than just a monster hunt. “While the prospect of looking for evidence of the Loch Ness monster is the hook to this project, there is an extraordinary amount of new knowledge that we will gain from the work about organisms that inhabit Loch Ness,” Gemmell said on his university website. He predicts they will document new species of life, particularly bacteria, and will provide important data on the extent of several new invasive species recently seen in the loch, such as Pacific pink salmon. Their findings are expected to be presented in January 2019.

Ex Output:
Scientists plan DNA hunt for Loch Ness monster next month.


Ex Input:
In November 2018, a Grand Rapids, Michigan woman who needed a heart transplant due to complications from chemotherapy was turned down by a Spectrum Health medical committee due to lack of funds:Martin’s son, Alex Britt, said she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005 and the chemotherapy treatment, while curing her cancer, damaged her heart to the extent that she requires a transplant and had to leave her job on disability. Britt said she walked dogs and would pet-sit to raise funds.Martin said she was supposed to have a procedure Monday for an assistive device to help sustain her while waiting for a new heart. At the time, Martin had already raised $4,600 on GoFundMe for her prior medical bills.Britt set up a new GoFundMe page to raise the additional $10,000 needed to cover the cost of the immunosuppressive drugs. The medical center reportedly would not consider Martin for a heart transplant without her being able to pay for the drugs.The letter to Hedda Martin reportedly said, in part:Your medical situation was presented to our multidisciplinary heart transplant committee on Tuesday, October 20, 2018. The decision made by the committee is that you are not a candidate at this time for a heart transplant due to needing a more secure financial plan for immunosuppressive medication coverage. The Committee is recommending a fundraising effort of $10,000.The story went viral when it was shared by Rep-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York):Insurance groups are recommending GoFundMe as official policy – where customers can die if they can’t raise the goal in time – but sure, single payer healthcare is unreasonable.h/t @DanRiffle pic.twitter.com/zetPW0MgDd— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@Ocasio2018) November 24, 2018The story is true. Spectrum Health acknowledged the letter in a lengthy statement on their official website, although the organization stopped short of discussing Martin’s specific circumstances:It is important for patients to understand the long-term commitment they are making when accepting an organ donation. For this reason, we strive to ensure each patient is the best match so the donation contributes to a renewed life.Each transplant candidate is evaluated by our highly-skilled multidisciplinary team of physicians, nurses, social workers, clinical ethicists, dieticians and other experts. Transplant eligibility is a complex process. It requires consideration of a multitude of factors based on established best practice standards used by transplant centers across the country. Physical health, psychological and social well-being, and financial resources are among the factors considered for each patient. The ability to pay for post-transplant care and life-long immunosuppression medications is essential to increase the likelihood of a successful transplant and longevity of the transplant recipient. We help patients understand the long-term health implications of a transplant along with their total financial commitment, such as post-transplant medication expenses paid to pharmacies of their choice.Martin’s GoFundMe has raised more than enough to cover the costs of the immunosuppressant medication she needs, but her story is far from unusual. At least a third of the money raised on GoFundMe in 2017 was to help with medical issues, because health care costs in the United States are so high:It’s become a go-to way for people in need to help pay their doctors. Medical fundraisers now account for 1 in 3 of the website’s campaigns, and they bring in more money than any other GoFundMe category, said GoFundMe CEO Rob Solomon.“In the old paradigm you would give $20 to somebody who needed help,” Solomon said. “In the new paradigm, you’ll give $20, you’ll share that and that could turn into 10, 20, 50 or 100 people doing that. So, the $20 could turn in hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.”Since at least 2017, a majority of Americans have listed access to affordable healthcare as one of their most pressing concerns.

Ex Output:
"A medical committee withheld a heart transplant from a woman saying that she needed to have at least $10,000 for immunosuppressant medication and suggested ""a fundraising effort."


Ex Input:
There is no discussion of cost in this release. The journal article says several institutions refused to provide their prices. Nevertheless, the high cost of robotic surgery is an important issue. The researchers wrote they were unable to say whether those high costs might be offset [or not] by certain potential benefits (such as shorter hospital stays), but the release should have at least acknowledged the cost issues. The release does report the percentage of patients in the robot-assisted and open surgery groups that were still alive with no signs of disease progression two years after their procedures: 72.3 percent of patients in the robotic surgery group compared with 71.6 percent in the open surgery group… and it notes the difference was not statistically significant. It also reports that the robot-assisted surgery patients checked out of the hospital after six days on average, compared to 7 days for those in the open surgery group. The release reports only half as much blood loss in the robot surgery group, but does not report the amounts, which averaged 300 mL in the robot-assisted group vs. 700 mL in the open surgery group… that’s a difference of less than one pint. The release reports that patients who had robot-assisted surgery spent more time in the operating room than those having open procedures (seven hours vs. six hours). It also reports overall rates of adverse effects (67 percent in the robot group vs. 69 percent in the open group), along with listing the most common problems: urinary tract infections and intestinal obstructions. It would have helped if the release had pointed out that these complication rates were not statistically different. In a way, the release is satisfactory and yet maddeningly unsatisfactory. It tells readers that the study was a randomly controlled trial with 350 patients, but it buries the most important point: that the ability of these researchers to do this sort of rigorous trial comparing robot-assisted surgery with open techniques highlights how few such trials are done. Deep in the release, the researchers are quoted as saying the findings “underscore the need for further high-quality trials to assess surgical innovation before this surgical technique is widely adopted in clinical practice” and further that “It is important to conduct these trials before widespread adoption of technology, as has been the case with robotic prostatectomy (removal of the prostate).” The quality of the evidence should have been the lead. The release does not exaggerate the prevalence of bladder cancer. It does not push treatment on those who are unlikely to benefit. The release could be interpreted as promoting a newer more expensive form of therapy that doesn’t provide any advantages over the standard therapy. Although the release reports that the study was supported by the National Cancer Institute, it fails to note the financial disclosures several researchers made about money they have received from companies relevant to this study. The comparison of robot-assisted to open surgery was the main point of the release. The release makes clear that both techniques are available… including at the institution that issued the release. The release could have informed readers that, according to the published paper, that all of the operators in this study had done at least 10 robot-assisted cystectomies before being allowed to participate in the study. When widespread adoption of the robot-assisted procedure occurs, it would be possible that many surgeons would not have completed that many robotic cystectomies. While the release does tell readers that what is really new here is the use of randomization to compare robot-assisted surgery to open surgery for bladder cancer, it manages to bury that lead so deep under the poorly worded description of the results of this non-inferiority trial that the thrust of the release is unsatisfactory. The release doesn’t employ unjustified, sensational language.

Ex Output:

Robotic surgery as effective as open surgery for bladder cancer