instruction:
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.
question:
The researchers who conducted the review said their findings suggest most people can eat red and processed meat at current average intake, typically three or four times a week for adults in North America and Europe, without significant health risks. “Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease,” said Bradley Johnston, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada who co-led the review published on Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal. However, in what amounts to a scientific food fight, experts from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and elsewhere, including one of the review authors, said guidelines that could lead people to eat more red and processed meats were irresponsible. They asked in a letter to the journal that it “pre-emptively retract publication” of the papers pending further review. A statement by the Harvard School of Public Health, shared with Reuters by Frank Hu, a doctor and chair of the nutrition department, said: “From a public health point of view, it is irresponsible and unethical to issue dietary guidelines that are tantamount to promoting meat consumption, even if there is still some uncertainty about the strength of the evidence.”  The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) both say red and processed meat may or can cause cancer. The WCRF advises eating “little, if any” processed meat and only “moderate amounts” of red meat, such as beef, pork and lamb - with a weekly limit of 500 grams (17.6 ounces) cooked weight. Giota Mitrou, the WCRF’s director of research, said people should not misinterpret the review as saying meat is risk-free. “The public could be put at risk if they interpret this new recommendation to mean we can continue eating as much red and processed meat as they like without increasing their risk of cancer,” she said. “This is not the case.”          In the analysis published on Monday, researchers from Canada, Spain and Poland conducted a series of reviews of both randomized controlled trials and observational studies looking at the possible health impact of eating red and processed meat. Among the randomised trials they selected for analysis, which included around 54,000 people, they found no statistically significant link between eating meat and the risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. Among the observational studies, which covered millions of people, they did find “a very small reduction in risk” in those who ate three fewer servings of red or processed meat a week, but said this association “was very uncertain.”  “Our bottom line recommendation ... is that for the majority of people, but not everyone, continuing their red and processed meat consumption is the best approach,” Johnston said. David Katz, director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center at the Yale University School of Medicine, said he had “grave concerns” about the potential of the new review “for damage to public understanding, and public health”. But other experts said the work was a comprehensive, well-conducted analysis of the available evidence on eating meat and human health. “This study will, I hope, help to eliminate the incorrect impression ... that some meat products are as carcinogenic as cigarette smoke, and to discourage dramatic media headlines claiming that ‘bacon is killing us’,” said Ian Johnson, a nutrition expert at Britain’s Quadram Institute of bioscience. Christine Laine, editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine, noted that nutrition studies are challenging. “To be honest with our patients and the public, we shouldn’t be making recommendations that sound like they’re based on solid evidence,” she said. “There may be lots of reasons to decrease meat in your diet, but if you’re decreasing it to improve your health, we don’t have a lot of strong evidence to support that.”
answer:
Steak is back on the menu, if a new red meat risk review is to be believed.


question:
Unlike the all-out defense that Buxton normally puts on display, the Twins were more than willing to play it safe with this injury. Buxton was placed on the seven-day injured list for players with concussion-like symptoms, just as first baseman C.J. Cron and left fielder Eddie Rosario returned from their injuries. The Twins also designated right-handed reliever Mike Morin for release or assignment Tuesday before their series opener against the New York Mets. “We’re not going to mess around, really, in any way,” manager Rocco Baldelli said. “This is serious stuff. The health of Buck is obviously the most important thing. I think it’s something that is already resolving itself in some ways, but something where I think this is the right move.” Buxton was hurt Saturday during his head-first, diving catch of a sinking line drive during a critical win at main division competitor Cleveland, forcing him out of the game in the eighth inning. Buxton, who was sidelined for 13 games last month with a bruised right wrist, has had his promising career so far stunted by a variety of injuries, in part due to the speedster’s fearless style in the outfield and on the bases. Buxton was announced Tuesday as the team’s annual winner of the Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association’s Heart and Hustle Award. “He hit the ground pretty hard, and this isn’t any sort of light injury,” Baldelli said. “He didn’t graze anything. He made a great play and hit the ground, and he gives his body up for this team every single night that he takes the field.” The Twins, who took a six-game lead in the AL Central over the Indians into Tuesday night, have managed to maintain the highest-scoring offense in the majors despite putting 10 different position players on the injured list over various points of this season. Rosario was out for 13 games with a sprained left ankle. “It’s been a tough couple of weeks when it comes to injuries and things like that, but I’m back today and I know what Buxton is going through is nothing bad and he’ll be back soon as well,” said Rosario, who’s second on the team with 20 homers and still leads the Twins with 60 RBIs. Because of the All-Star break, Cron only missed five games with right thumb inflammation, a condition that has bothered him for most of the season. “I’m just going to try to tape it up, I guess. Try to pretend as if nothing’s wrong and try to just keep going,” Cron said. “That’s really all you can do.” Morin had a 3.18 ERA in 23 appearances after being invited to spring training on a minor league contract. His somewhat surprising removal from the roster could be the precursor to the addition of a reliever or two on the trade market over the next two weeks. “When you make decisions like this, you can look back on them, and you’re not really sure because things are not obvious sometimes, but unfortunately we landed on the thought of designating Mike,” Baldelli said. “I have no doubt he’s going to land on his feet.” ___ More AP baseball coverage: https://apnews.com/MLB and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports
answer:
As Cron, Rosario return, Twins put Buxton on concussion list.


question:
This release earns praise for clearly mentioning the cost savings derived from the use of chest ultrasounds versus chest X-rays in treating patients in the study — $9,700 from 191 patients. The release could have been even even more helpful by adding information showing chest ultrasounds cost about two-and-a-half times less than chest X-rays ($140 versus $370 respectively). The release also might have mentioned that there’s a large initial outlay for ultrasound machines that may make them too expensive in the developing world. Another upfront cost not mentioned is the expense of training emergency medicine physicians (and presumably also internal medicine, pediatric and family medicine physicians) to do this procedure. The release clearly stated that chest ultrasounds effectively diagnosed study patients who had pneumonia as well as chest X-rays. There were 38.8 percent fewer chest X-rays required for a pneumonia diagnosis in the investigational arm of the study compared to the control group of the study. The study also showed that stays in the emergency department by ultrasound-only patients were almost a half-hour shorter than those of the control group. We offer a word of caution, however. The release didn’t explain how the pneumonia cases were actually diagnosed so we cannot determine if the ultrasound really was accurate and effectively diagnosed study patients who had pneumonia. The release points out that there was no increase in adverse events reported during the study, nor were there any cases where pneumonia was not appropriately diagnosed. There is the potential for some harms that aren’t addressed, namely missed diagnosis and the identification of small pneumonias that don’t need to be treated (overdiagnosis). “In the era of precision medicine, lung ultrasound may also be an ideal imaging option in children who are at higher risk for radiation-induced cancers or have received multiple radiographic or CT imaging studies,” according to the lead study author. This benefit in terms of harms reduction might have been stressed even more. Ultrasound screening could be safer in the long run for children than X-ray since repeated exposure to radiation presents a cumulative risk for cancer. Radiation oncology experts and the FDA have long called for reduced reliance on routine X-ray and computerized tomography (CT) screening in children unless the benefits outweigh the risks. More than 100 professional organizations including pediatricians, radiation physicists and oncologists have signed on to the “Image Gently” campaign which urges the use of ultrasound instead of radiation when feasible. The release makes clear that this was a randomized, controlled trial comparing chest ultrasound versus chest X-rays as a diagnostic tool for identifying pneumonia in young patients. Participants either received an ultrasound possibly followed by a chest X-ray, if needed, in the investigational arm, or a chest X-ray followed by a chest ultrasound in the control group. However, as noted above, it isn’t explained how the pneumonia cases were actually diagnosed. This reduces the quality of the study. Ultrasound should correctly diagnose the larger pneumonias without problems, but small ones can be missed or they may be overdiagnosed. The published article briefly discusses the lack of accuracy in its discussion section. It appears to rely heavily on a meta-analysis of previous studies involving ultrasound accuracy. The study states: “Second, we were unable to calculate test performance characteristics adhering to the STARD (Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies) statement due to the fact that 38.8% of the subjects in the investigational arm did not receive a CXR [chest x-ray] that would have served as a practical reference standard. By design, our sonologists were not blinded to CXR results in the control arm so that the information could be used to guide treatment. Lack of blinding to a reference standard could be a potential source of bias in calculated test performance characteristics for LUS.” This release doesn’t engage in disease-mongering. The release notes that the study was conducted at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai but doesn’t disclose sponsors or potential conflicts of interest. According to the journal article, one of the researchers has a consulting relationship with an ultrasound company. This should have been included in the release. The release adequately explains that chest X-rays are the diagnostic method of choice for determining cases of pneumonia, according to the World Health Organization. The study’s primary goal was to determine if chest ultrasounds were an adequate alternative to chest X-rays. A non-imaging method used to diagnose pneumonia is a physical examination. The release does make a point that ultrasound technology is widely available in health care facilities around the world. We would have liked for the release to include the fact that in perhaps three-quarters of the world, there is a lack of facilities that can provide even diagnostic X-rays. This fact, attributed to the WHO in the journal article, is absent in the news release. High resolution ultrasound machines would be even further out of reach in these countries. The novelty of a safe and cheaper alternative to expensive radiography that could provide equivalent diagnostic precision is clearly enough to warrant this release. We don’t believe the news release relies on unjustifiable language to summarize the potential benefit of substituting ultrasound over X-Ray in screening for pediatric pneumonia.
answer:

Lung ultrasound may be a safe substitute for chest X-ray when diagnosing pneumonia in children