You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

"Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release."
Solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Why? The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

New input: No discussion of cost. The story did an adequate job of summarizing the benefits reported in the study and putting them into context. The story stated that Folfirinox "caused more serious side effects than standard chemo" but never named them nor quantified them. The journal article reports, for example, that: 75 of those in the Folfirinox group (46%) had neutropenia compared with 35 in the Gemcitabine group (21%) 21 of those in the Folfirinox group (13%) had diarrhea compared with 3 in the Gemcitabine group (2%) 15 of those in the Folfirinox group (9%) had sensory neuropathy compared with 0 in the Gemcitabine group Adequate evaluation of the evidence, including a cautionary note from one independent expert. There was no disease-mongering of pancreatic cancer in this story. Two independent sources were quoted. Good sourcing. The focus of the story is comparing the new drug combo with the existing alternative gemcitabine. The story appropriately ended with this independent expert perspective: "doctors are testing other drug combinations to treat pancreatic cancer. She's hopeful that these combinations will work as well or better than Folfirinox, with fewer serious side effects. Folfirinox "is going to be one of a host of options" for patients, Azad says " The story never explained the availability of the drug in the US or even if it's FDA approved. The story referred to it as "newnovel combinationI see it becoming the standard of caregoing to be one of a host of options" but none of those descriptions explains whether it's approved and available now. The story refers to Folfirinox as a new drug and a novel combination, but also offers an independent expert's perspective that "doctors are testing other drug combinations to treat pancreatic cancer. She's hopeful that these combinations will work as well or better than Folfirinox, with fewer serious side effectsand that Folfirinox "is going to be one of a host of options" for patients." It's clear that the story did not rely on a news release.
Solution:
New drug advances the fight against pancreatic cancer