Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
"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
Reason: 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.

Now, solve this instance: A cost for the medications discussed was provided; in addition the story noted that niacin was available in a less expensive, generic version. The story adequately discussed the benefits observed in this study, in a somewhat scattered fashion. It mentioned the difference in heart attacks and other heart problems observed and though they were few, the difference was statistically significant. The story does note the issues related to the surrogate endpoint and puts the study into context. The use ofa spokesperson from the manufacturer of eztimibe in comments on the value of the surrogate endpoint is curious and takes away from the legitimate discussion on its value. This is offset somewhat by the comments of another presumably less conflicted expert. The side effect, flushing, associate with naicin was mentioned in the story as well as an estimate (1/3 of those taking Niaspan) for how many in the study were affected. The story provided information about the study in a piece meal fashion which included the number of individuals studied and that the study was stopped early because one group appeared to be faring better than the other with respect to size of carotid plaque. A comment from a representative of the other drug makers mentioned that the end point (size of plaque buildup in the carotid) needs to followed up on because in and of itself does not have a health impact. Coming from him it almost seemed as though it was sour grapes, but it is a very valid concern for interpreting the results of the study. It would have been better to have a less involved expert comment on the surrogate endpoint/ The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. Comments from several expert sources outside of the study investigators or the manufacturer of the drug that appear to provide a better outcome were included in this story. The story discussed several of the available medications that could be used in addition to statins to lower heart attack risk. It might have been useful to include some information about dietary and lifestyle changes that could also be used to lower heart attack risk. The story made it very clear that the medications discussed are all currently commercially available. None of the medicines discussed in this story are new or novel and they were not presented as such. Does not appear to rely exclusively on a press release.
Student:
Niacin shrinks artery plaque; Merck's Zetia does not and may carry risks, new study finds