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 Q]: The story describes the cost of the drug-coated stents compared to the older version, the bare metal stents. The story does report the risk of clotting with the drug-coated stents, however the comparison of coated and bare metal stents is the key piece of information that is missing in this story. This information should also be presented inabsolute rather than relative terms. The story adequately describes therisk of clotting with drug-coated stents and of bleeding with Plavix. The story does a good job of describing the strength of the available evidence, particularly the limitationsof using hospital registries as a source of data. By accurately describing the prevalence of restenosis, or narrowing of the artery after stenting, the story avoids disease mongering. The story quotes multiple experts who have differing perspectives on how the new information changes clinical practice. The story does mention alternatives such as bare metal stents, bypass surgery and medications. The story clearly states that drug-coated stents are common. The story clearly states that the drug-coated stents are new but have been widely used since they were introduced. Because the story quotes multiple independent sources the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
[EX A]: FDA Probes Safety of Popular Heart Stent

[EX Q]: 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 Potosi 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.
[EX A]: Peruvian ice cap harbors evidence of conquistadors' avarice.

[EX Q]: This is a tricky one. The story does not explicitly address cost, except to call text messaging "a scalable and affordable approach." For many (or most) patients, the cost of receiving four text messages a week would likely be negligible covered by an individual's phone plan or by nominal text rates. However, not everyone owns a mobile phone, a fact that makes access (and cost) a more significant issue. However, the story does deliver on this point. The story discusses both the number of U.S. adults who own mobile phones (90 percent) and the fact that text messages are more accessible than other forms of mobile health communication (such as apps, which require patients to own smartphones or other smart devices). So, while we'd prefer a more in-depth discussion here, we'll awarda Satisfactory rating for the story's nod in this direction. The story addresses the range of benefits reported in the study, such as reduced cholesterol and blood pressure, but doesn't quantify that information or offer readers any context. For example, while the story says "patients who had received the text messages had reduced their cholesterol," the JAMA paper reports that patients who received the text messages had a "mean difference [of] 5 mg/dL" in "LDL-C." In other words, the information in the paper, while quantified, probably isn't very useful to many readers outside the health industry. Is "a mean difference of5 mg/dL in LDL-C" good? Bad? Irrelevant? This is where reporters have an opportunity to shine. If a news story can take those numbers and translate them into language that is accessible to non-experts, it provides a very real service. It would have been great to see that here. As long as people aren't driving and checking their cell phones, there don't appear to be any harms associated with receiving well-meaning text messages four times a week, so we'll mark this one "not applicable." This is a strong suit. The story not only offers a concise, but good, summary of the study but it also goes out of its way to address the study's limitations. For example, the study notes that the study "can't tell us whether text messaging could eventually lead to fewer subsequent heart attacks among the patients receiving those messages or whether the positive health outcomes would continue past the six-month study window." Good points, and we're glad the story includes them. No disease mongering here. The story includes input from an outside expert who was not involved with the research. The story clearly meets our bar here, although it would have been stronger if it had reached out to at least one more independent source preferably one who hadn't written an editorial that ran in conjunction with the paper in JAMA. Yes, the editorial was independent and provides some insightful commentary. But it also means we already knew where this source stood on the issue. Finding another reputable expert, who hadn't already weighed in publicly on the work, would have been great. The focus of the story is not so much on how the text message intervention directly reduced heart disease risk, but on the extent to which it resulted in patients taking steps to reduce their own risk such as by exercising more, smoking less, making dietary changes, or taking prescription drugs on a regular basis. The story does discuss other "mobile health interventions," such as smartphone apps but notes that there don't appear to be many mobile health projects that rely simply on text messages. The story also looks at how the text messages helped patients pursue lifestyle changes like exercising more and smoking less that reduced their risk. It was fairly clear from the story that this was a clinical trial, and that this particular service doesn't seem to be available to offer customized, encouraging text messages for heart disease patients. From the start, the story frames this research in the context of the much larger "mobile health" field. For example, the story notes that "While there are more than 100,000 health-related apps on the market, the evidence to date is lacking as to whether many of those apps are safe or effective." Since the story includes quotes from an interview, we can be fairly certain it went beyond the related JAMA news release.
[EX A]:
Text Reminders Help People Lower Cholesterol, Blood Pressure