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: Scientists on Monday described evidence of this bitter chapter of South American history preserved deep in an ice cap in the Peruvian Andes in the form of residue from the relentless clouds of metallic dust spewed from the mines starting in the 16th century. The mountaintop mines of Potosí in Bolivia were the world’s richest silver source. While the Incas had long extracted silver, a new processing method introduced by the Spanish in 1572 greatly increased production even as it belched lead dust and other pollutants into the atmosphere. The pollution blew over the entire region, including the Quelccaya Ice Cap some 500 miles (800 km) northwest in southern Peru. The Spanish refining process involved pulverizing silver ore, containing both lead and silver, into powder, which sent metallic dust into the atmosphere. The powder was mixed with mercury. The silver was separated by heating the mixture to allow the mercury to evaporate. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists said they drilled into the glacier at an altitude of about 18,000 feet (5,600 meters) to learn about past air pollution. The age of the ice was determined with precision because it was laid down in discernible layers caused by the annual alternation between wet and dusty dry seasons. The pollutants spawned by the Spanish colonial-era silver operations from the 16th century through the 18th century consisted mostly of lead but also arsenic and others. The researchers called it the earliest evidence of large-scale, human-produced air pollution in South America, beginning more than two centuries before the industrial revolution. The pollutants were reminders of “the sad conditions and fate of tens of thousands locals exploited in the silver mining operations during the colonial period,” Ohio State University environmental scientist Paolo Gabrielli said. “Their work conditions must have been truly terrible. Many died because of the strenuous physical efforts but it was also not infrequent that underground mine galleries collapsed, burying and killing hundreds of people,” Gabrielli said. Ohio State earth sciences professor Lonnie Thompson called the Quelccaya ice a “Rosetta Stone” for studying climate history, saying the samples also can reveal past temperatures, aridity and perhaps even the evolution of bacteria and viruses.

Output: Peruvian ice cap harbors evidence of conquistadors' avarice.


Input: Consider Input: The story does not describe the costs of uterine artery embolization or how they compare to costs of surgery. The cost of UAE is quite high and for some women may not be covered by insurance. The story provides adequate quantification of some of the most important things for consumers to know, such as the fact that after a year, there were no differences in the quality of life of the women assigned to uterine artery embolization compared to those assigned to surgery and that 13% of those who underwent UAE had a repeat hospitalization, mostly for surgical intervention because of failure of UAE to achieve the desired results. The story could have provided more quantification of other pieces of information that women would want to know, such as length of hospital stay, time to return to work, or risk of serious adverse events. The story does mention some of the potential harms of uterine artery embolization, such as the need for repeat procedures for treatment of recurrent symptoms and the fact that there are questions about safety of pregnancy after the procedure. The story should have also mentioned the potential for ovarian failure, causing infertility, infection, delayed complications and a small risk of emergency hysterectomy. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story accurately describes the prevalence and symptoms of uterine fibroids. The story only uses quotes from the original article and accompanying editorial. It doesn't appear that the authors were even interviewed. The story should have quoted other clinicians/researchers who were not related to the study who could have provided some perspective on what this new information means for clinical practice. The story does mention alternative options such as myomectomy (surgical removal of the fibroids), hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) in addition to uterine artery embolization. The story could have mentioned other treatments such as watchful waiting, pain medications or birth control pills. The story does not state whether uterine artery embolization (UAE) is available and if so, how widely. And availability is a real issue. It requires expertise in interventional vascular radiology and an interest in the female pelvic anatomy. Facilities offering the procedure would need strong links between gynecologists and radiologists to provide coordinated assessment and care. This is not explained in the piece. The story implies that uterine artery embolization is a new procedure. The story could have mentioned that the procedure has been performed for more than 10 years in Europe and the US, although it has been limited to mostly academic hospitals. There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information, although it is noteworthy that the story only uses quotes lifted from the published study and from an accompanying editorial. It doesn't appear that these people were actually interviewed.

Output: Treating fibroids without surgery


Input: Consider Input: The story does not address costs. While the price of a supplement pill is typically just a few cents, this story would have been better if (like another story about this report that we reviewed) it had pointed out that Americans spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on vitamin D supplements. This story reports that the Institute of Medicine committee concluded that typical consumption of vitamin D and calcium is adequate to support bone health, though the story does not define just what the term “bone health” means. The nature of the IOM report does not lend itself to quantifying potential benefits to bone health or other outcomes that were mentioned. The story does provide details about blood levels of vitamin D that are considered adequate by the IOM committee, as well as the higher levels advocated by some individual experts. The story also makes clear that the IOM committee concluded that evidence is lacking to claim that vitamin D or calcium produces other health benefits. This story does a good job of calling attention to kidney damage from excessive vitamin D and kidney stones caused by too much calcium. It also says that some studies have found other harms. This story does not do as good a job as some others in terms of explaining the process of evidence review and deliberation that the Institute of Medicine committee went through before issuing its report. However, readers are given a sense that the report is a consensus statement that attempts to sum up what is known about vitamin D and calcium. The story also refers to other reports and studies that provide context. The inclusion of comments from individual experts who dissent from some aspects of the IOM report accurately portray the active scientific debate on this topic. This story also does a nice job of pointing out recent examples in which hopes of vitamin benefits were dashed by careful experiments, thus helping to put into perspective the claims by individual scientists of hoped-for benefits of higher vitamin D consumption. The story clearly reports the Institute of Medicine committee conclusion that almost all Americans already consume enough vitamin D (and calcium) to support bone health. The comments from those who advocate broader use of supplements are labeled as individual opinions. There are multiple independent sources quoted in this story. This story could have provided readers with more background about the independent sources quoted; there is no mention of whether any of them have any potential conflicts. The story explains that there are alternatives to supplements, that vitamin D is included in foods (natural and fortified) and that vitamin D is produced in our skin when exposed to sunlight. The story refers to the availability of vitamin D in certain foods (natural and fortified), supplements, and that our skin produces vitamin D when exposed to sunlight. There is no claim of novelty. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.


Output: Report: A bit more vitamin D is good, not too much