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: This release makes no mention of the costs of the drugs compared in this study, even though the drugs have been in use for years and are widely available. Since the study is a comparison of various treatments for this form of cancer, it seems relevant to offer a cost comparison as well as a comparison of efficacy. It appears that the high dose methotrexate is given over a 24-hour period, presumably in the hospital, while the standard methotrexate is given as a single dose. Also, the high dose methotrexate is followed by leucovorin administration while the standard dose is not. According to the site GoodRx, the cost for methotrexate in low-dose (2.5 mg) pill form averages out to about $50 for a month’s supply. Newer, injectable variations of the drug cost upwards of $500 a month for the 25 mg dose. The release states that patients receiving high doses of the drug methotrexate “had a significantly better outcome, by 5 to 6 percent” than did patients receiving the current standard of care, which is gradually escalating doses of the drug. The release also explains that patients nine years old or younger who were also treated with a steroid called decadron (dexamethasone) for half as long as normal (14 versus 28 days) benefited from the treatment while patients 10 and older did not. We’re not sure of the meaning behind these results as portrayed in the release. Which outcome was better by 5 or 6 percent? The study has several. Does that mean the relapse rate was reduced or is it the event free survival that was better? It would be more meaningful to readers if the release had included the actual relapse and event free survival rates for each group analyzed in terms most people can understand. For example: “relapse rates were 5 percent lower in Group X compared to Group Y.” We’ll give this category a satisfactory rating largely due to the release including information that patients 10 and older receiving dexamethasone “were at much higher risk for a debilitating bone condition called osteonecrosis,” although we would have been happier if that greater risk would have been quantified. However, the published study explains that there were toxicity problems beyond that of dexamethasone and the release would have been stronger including that information as well. The release stated the study was randomized and controlled, and provides a broad overview of the study design, for which we give the release a borderline satisfactory under this criteria. However, these are the superficial results. On deeper delving into the study methodology, the statistical significances of the results were very close to not statistically significant. This is due to their planned interim stopping of the treatment and the fact that they were looking at multiple outcomes in multiple groups. This release doesn’t demonstrate disease-mongering. While the release does say that this clinical trial was run by the Children’s Oncology Group, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, it makes no mention of possible conflicts of interest. Compounding that is the fact that the published study says, “Disclosures provided by the authors are available with this article at www.jco.org,” but that information is behind the journal’s paywall for most readers, so it’s unknown if there is, or is not, a conflict. It appears as though five of the authors (out of a total of about 20) have some conflicts of interest, mostly from several types of drug company payments. The release is comparing the efficacy of treatment regimens using different drugs so alternative treatments for B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia are noted. The release makes clear at the end that the treatment of this disease is improving thanks to refinement of the use of existing drug treatments, meaning that they are readily available for patient use. The release suggests the study findings could change the way childhood leukemia is treated. Modifying existing treatments to enhance a patient’s survival is certainly novel enough to warrant a release. There is no use of unjustifiable language in this release. However, the tone may be a bit overly optimistic given the study findings.

Output: Relapses of childhood leukemia improve with high doses of common chemo drug


Input: Consider Input: That’s when the 37-year-old nurse and mother got scared for her family. “I couldn’t sleep that night. I thought, ‘If I brought this home to my mom, she’s probably going to die, and it’s probably going to be my fault.’ So I had to find a different way,” Neuburger said. To protect her family, Neuburger moved from her parents’ home, where she had been living with her son after a recent divorce, and into a camper. Even though she doesn’t know when she’ll be able to hug her 11-year-old boy again, she’s glad she chose to self-isolate — especially since she began feeling sick five days after that hospital scare. Holed up in the camper as she awaits the results of a COVID-19 test, Neuburger is among countless doctors and nurses around the world who are choosing to move to hotels, tents, garages and other temporary housing to protect their loved ones — even as they risk exposing themselves to a virus that has claimed tens of thousands of lives, including a number of medical workers. Hotels, some business owners and people who run Airbnb rental homes are among those offering lodging, sometimes for free, to doctors and nurses needing to self-isolate. Social media is full of efforts to match medical professionals with temporary housing. One Facebook group, RVs 4 MDs, connects RV owners with medical workers. In Ireland, a real estate company has used Instagram to offer up empty flats. The extra layer of isolation means those who are risking their own health to save the lives of others are now sacrificing even more as they resign themselves to virtual contact with their kids, parents, spouses and others they would normally fall back on for emotional support during this stressful time. “It’s upsetting — even though you know it’s the right decision to leave your family,” said Mica Sosa, a floor nurse at an oncology unit at a Phoenix hospital, who moved into a friend’s empty condominium a few weeks ago. “It’s so bizarre to turn around and walk away from the people you normally run to.”  Events Sosa knows she will miss: Easter with her 4-year-old son; her mom’s 71st birthday; and her own 7th wedding anniversary. Some colleagues thought she was moving too soon. But with her mother’s age and her own husband in his 60s, Sosa didn’t want to wait until Phoenix had a surge in cases to take precautions. “Why wait until you are New York to get that radical? You need to protect yourself now,” she said. “I think everyone needs to look at their own family situation and decide what’s best for them.”  For most people, the new coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. But the virus can lead to more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death for some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems. Outside Portland, Maine, a pregnant Joy Engel is staying home with a toddler son while her husband, Dr. Ben Hagopian, lives in a friend’s empty in-law apartment. “We fought hard for this pregnancy and we weren’t willing to take the risk,” Engel said. For Neuburger, the gravity of the coronavirus took hold in one shift in the intensive care unit at the Minnesota hospital where she works. She felt her mask leaking as she cared for one patient, but she kept doing her job and switched to a protective respiratory device when she could. Then came the patient whose ventilator tube came apart. On the way home from work, she called her dad. She told him to take her son, Xander Ponkin, upstairs, while she went directly to the basement where she had been staying. She kept away from the rest of her family until she could move into a camper two days later. “My dad made me give him a hug even though I didn’t want to. He said, ‘What happens if you get sick and die? I won’t see you again,’” she said. She used Facebook to find the camper, and plans to pay its owner $200 a month. It’s now parked in the driveway of her former in-laws, who are caring for Xander, in the Twin Cities suburb of St. Paul Park. She has been able to play with him in the yard — at a distance. They also use video chat to play games, and she watches from her window as he shoots baskets outside. The hardest part, Neuburger said, is not being able to give him a hug. “I’m making the best of it. I’m trying to,” she said. “Sometimes I just sit here and cry. But then … I feel like I sleep better knowing I’m not possibly infecting my family.”  ___ Associated Press writer David Sharp in Portland, Maine, contributed to this report.

Output: Doctors, nurses leave homes to protect families from virus.


Input: Consider Input: We would have liked to have seen a little more information on costs, but we are glad that costs are mentioned up high. In the third sentence, the story says, “The surgery necessary to allow deep brain stimulation is extremely expensive” Later it says, “The cost of the surgery is about $50,000”. It would have been interesting to note whether deep brain stimulation is covered by Medicare or any insurance companies for treatment of any disorders, including Parkinson’s. The story attempts to quantify the benefits in both relative and absolute terms, but it leaves readers confused because of the shifting nature of the study cohort. It looks as if the study started with 17 patients but then later it says that the study looked at 14 patients. It says, “The researchers found that 18 percent of patients went into remission after 24 weeks, 36 percent (of 14 patients) after one year. After two years, of the 12 patients still in the study, seven patients (58 percent) were in remission.” The change in the number appears to be because the researchers stopped doing the deep brain stimulation on three patients, a fact that is not fully explored in the story. This all would have been more easily explained and less confusing if the story had just stuck with the absolute numbers. If you try to do the math on 18 percent of 14 patients, for example, you get 2.52 patients. Was it two patients? Was it three? Why not just tell readers x number out of x number? There’s just one line in the story about harms: “Patients didn’t suffer from side effects, she noted.” The story also says, “The workings of deep brain stimulation as a whole are a mystery, although Mayberg said it may work by changing the brain’s rhythms.” If how it works is a mystery, we think a little more space should have been devoted to potential harms. There were a total of 8 adverse events related to either the surgery or the device, two of which were deemed serious (infection). The story misses these events entirely. The story cautiously explains the evidence and the reasons for the optimism around the evidence. It shows that the study is in a very small group of people — just 17. But it also shows that the study followed them for two years. However, while providing some of the important caveats, it fails to note that there were no control subjects. While the results may appear encouraging, they are by no means definitive without a control group. Nonetheless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this one. The story does not engage in disease mongering and makes it clear that it is “too early to know for sure if the treatment is appropriate to be used for any kind of depression.” The story says that the St. Jude Medical Neuromodulation company “provided consulting fees to Mayberg and some of the other study authors” and “is currently recruiting patients for a study that could pave the way for its approval as a treatment for depression.” The story also quotes Samuel James Collier, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Austin, who provides a welcome dose of skepticism to the story, saying “Medications and ECT — electroconvulsive therapy — are clearly safer, better tolerated, and do not embody a large surgical risk. …I can’t think of a scenario where deep brain stimulation would be considered even remotely before medications and ECT were exhausted.”  The story alludes to other treatment options, including medications and electroconvulsive therapy, and it quotes an outside expert saying that these are preferable. The story makes it clear that the treatment is widely available, saying, “Deep brain stimulation has been around for more than 20 years…and is commonly used to treat Parkinson’s disease.” There are no claims of novelty made in the story. The story does not rely on this press release from Emory University.


Output: Study Looks at Deep Brain Stimulation in Bipolar Patients