TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: The study to be published on Wednesday in the Journal of Neuroscience differs from many other pot-related research projects that are focused on chronic, heavy users of cannabis. The collaborative effort between Northwestern University’s medical school, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School showed a direct correlation between the number of times users smoked and abnormalities in the brain. “What we’re seeing is changes in people who are 18 to 25 in core brain regions that you never, ever want to fool around with,” said co-senior study author Dr. Hans Beiter, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University. In particular, the study identified changes to the nucleus accumbens and the nucleus amygdala, regions of the brain that are key to regulating emotion and motivation, in marijuana users who smoke between one and seven joints a week. The researchers found changes to the volume, shape and density of those brain regions. But more studies are needed to determine how those changes may have long-term consequences and whether they can be fixed with abstinence, Beiter said. “Our hypothesis from this early work is that these changes may be an early sign of what later becomes amotivation, where people aren’t focused on their goals,” he said. The study, which was funded in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, comes as access to pot is expanding following 2012 votes in Washington state and Colorado to legalize its recreational use. The drug remains illegal under federal law. Medical pot is allowed in 20 U.S. states. Pot legalization advocates make the argument that marijuana is safer than alcohol a central part of their campaigns. Other research has found drinking alcohol alters the brain, Beiter said. But while researchers do not know exactly how the mental rewiring seen in pot users affects their lives, the study shows it physically changes the brain in ways that differ from drinking, he said. This latest study fits with other research showing marijuana use has significant effects on young people because their brains are still developing, and Beiter said he has become convinced that marijuana should only be used by people under 30 if they need it to manage pain from a terminal illness.

SOLUTION: Casual pot use causes brain abnormalities in the young: study.

PROBLEM: "Quoting the study lead, the cost of ginger dietary supplements ranges from $6 to $30 for 50 to 100 capsules; however, as noted by the researchers, it is not apparent if dietary supplements would be as effective as the formulation developed specifically for the study. The study lead is quoted as saying the use of ginger resulted in a 40% improvement in patients’ nausea. In the placebo group, the study lead indicated that ""hardly any difference"" was noted. But we’re not given any context on important questions such as how much change in the nausea scale is actually clinical perceptible to patients. This is what’s really needed to understand any potential benefit. While there were no reported adverse effects associated with the use of ginger in this study, the story points out that ginger supplements can interfere with blood clotting, which can be particularly harmful to cancer patients undergoing treatment or surgery. The story suggests that people should talk with their doctors before using it. The story does not make it fully apparent that this research has not yet been published in a medical journal and only the abstract has been released. Unlike published articles, this study has not gone through a review process to check for errors in the methodology. While the story points out that 2/3 of the study participants were being treated for breast cancer, it would also be important to clearly state that the majority (90%) were women, which suggests that the results may not be applicable to the general population. Furthermore, it is not clear from the story or the abstract if patients received different types of chemotherapy or why the researchers included patients with various types of cancer. The story does not appear to exaggerate the prevalence of nausea as a side effect of chemotherapy treatment. In addition to interviewing the research lead, this story also includes quotes from a director at the American Cancer Society, as well as the president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; however, the president of the oncology society did not comment directly on the research. The story mentions that the study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and researches did not have any ties with the capsule maker who supplied the ginger formulation for this study. The story briefly mentioned anti-emetics, which reduce vomiting, but more detail could have been supplied regarding the efficacy of other medications for chemotherapy-related nausea. Ginger capsules sold as dietary supplements and products containing ginger flavoring, such as ginger teas or ginger spice, are widely available; however, the story notes that they may not provide the same benefits as the formulation used in the study. According to the story, the company that developed the capsule used in this study is seeking approval from the FDA to market the ginger formulation as an anti-nausea drug. Up front, the story points out that ginger has long been used to quell nausea; however, it also mentions that this is the first large-scale study evaluating its efficacy in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Other studies, as this story indicates, have had conflicting results. This story does not appear to rely on a press release."

SOLUTION: Study: Ginger capsules ease chemotherapy nausea

PROBLEM: "In his address to a joint session of Congress, President Barack Obama brought up the most explosive charge to emerge in the health care debate: the specter of ""death panels."" ""Some of people’s concerns (about the health care legislation) have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost,"" Obama told lawmakers and a national television audience on Sept. 9, 2009. ""The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."" The president was referring to a notion most prominently raised by former Alaska Republican Gov. Sarah Palin in a note posted on her Facebook page on Aug. 7, 2009. ""And who will suffer the most when they ration care?"" Palin wrote. ""The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."" We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's ""level of productivity in society"" to determine whether someone is ""worthy"" of health care. When we first  assessed  Palin's claim on Aug. 7, 2009, we gave it our lowest rating — . Palin may have jumped to a conclusion about the Obama administration's efforts to promote comparative effectiveness research. Such research has nothing to do with evaluating patients for ""worthiness."" Rather, comparative effectiveness research finds out which treatments work better than others. The health reform bill being considered in the House of Representatives says that a Comparative Effectiveness Research Center shall ""conduct, support, and synthesize research"" that looks at ""outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."" The idea here, which Obama and his budget director Peter Orszag have discussed many times, is to make it easier for doctors, health care workers, insurance companies and patients to find out which treatments are the most effective, as determined by clinical studies and other research. The House bill states in the section creating the Comparative Effectiveness Research Center and an oversight commission that ""nothing in this section shall be consd to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer."" In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select. Nothing has emerged to suggest to us that the death panels claim is any more  today than it was when Palin first floated it. We still rate it as  today. In our book, that counts as a ""lie, plain and simple."" So we find Obama's claim ."

SOLUTION:
The claim ... that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to  kill off senior citizens ... is a lie, plain and simple.