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: An analysis of canines at Britain's Crufts show - held annually since the reign of Queen Victoria - found 74 percent were in ideal condition but 26 percent were overweight. None of the animals studied were underweight, researchers from the University of Liverpool reported in the journal Veterinary Record. The team reached their conclusions after studying 1,000 images of 28 dog breeds placed between first and fifth in their class during competitions from 2001 to 2013. The issue was most pronounced in certain breeds, with 80 percent of pugs, 68 percent of Basset hounds and 63 percent of Labradors proving excessively fat. While obesity at Crufts is still less common than in the general pet population, researcher Alex German said the proportion of overweight animals was a concern because show dogs were assumed to be perfect specimens of their breed. Obesity causes significant health problems in dogs, including arthritis and diabetes.

SOLUTION: One in four dogs at top show Crufts found to be overweight.

PROBLEM: That could all change with a controversial Nov. 4 ballot initiative in which voters will get to decide for the first time whether to abolish a 1963 state law designed to protect small businesses. The law requires North Dakota pharmacies to be owned by local pharmacists or run by hospitals with a local pharmacist on staff. Supporters of the initiative argue it will remove an embarrassing anachronism, give consumers more choice and lower prescription drug costs. Opponents say that allowing national chains would destroy North Dakota's tradition of personalized pharmacy care and be yet another example of how the state's neighborly way of life is changing too fast. Canada, Germany, France and many other countries, they also note, have similar laws requiring local pharmacy ownership. "Independent pharmacies are more apt to focus on customer service," said Gabe Gretz, who bought Service Drug Pharmacy in Williston last year with his father. "This is our bread and butter. It's not just a hobby for us." "North Dakota Nice" is a truism here, not an irony, and most retail stores are still prohibited from opening before noon on Sunday - a throwback to laws designed to encourage family time. Yet since the oil boom began around 2010, drawing thousands of new residents to jobs where roughnecks can earn more than $100,000 a year, drug use, assault and other violent crimes have jumped. Recent sex-trafficking charges brought against an oil field worker in Williston, a once quiet town that is now the epicenter of the boom, marked the first charges of that type ever filed in the area and has escalated tension between new and old residents. Many newly arrived oil workers, and even some locals, say they hope the ballot measure passes so that they can use the same chains they've grown accustomed to elsewhere. Rite Aid Corp has no outpost in the state, North Dakota's Walmarts have no in-store pharmacies and the state's lone Walgreens, on the Minnesota border, is prohibited from selling prescription drugs. CVS is able to operate only a handful of pharmacies in North Dakota thanks to a 2006 buyout of several Osco Drug stores that operated before the 1963 law. "Honestly, it's not convenient getting my prescriptions here," said Jan Anseth, a resident of Williston who spends winters in Arizona where she gets her medications from a national chain. In North Dakota, Anseth says, she runs into problems transferring prescriptions and getting anything more than a 30-day supply. The ballot's primary sponsor, North Dakotans For Lower Pharmacy Prices, was funded with $168,000 in contributions from Walmart, Walgreens, Kmart and others. In campaign materials, the group cites data the Kaiser Family Foundation compiled in 2009 showing North Dakota has one of the highest per capita costs for prescription drug and medical devices in the country. Walmart says North Dakotans are missing out on its popular $4 prescription program, which makes many generic drugs available at the sharply discounted price. Crying foul, the state's independent pharmacists say they're able to often meet or beat prices from national chains, most of whom lose money on pharmacy sales as a way to get customers in the door. A random survey by Reuters of North Dakota's independent pharmacies showed that a 30-day supply of the generic blood thinning drug clopidogrel ranged in price between $10 and $59.95. A CVS in Bismarck, the state capital, quoted a price of $149.95 for the same dosage. "I get to set the prices here at my pharmacy," said Jenna Wahlstrom, a pharmacist at Larsen Service Drug, which her grandfather founded in Watford City in 1952. "It's not a corporate decision." Like the big chains, Wahlstrom offers her customers a smartphone app and online refill ordering. Her pharmacy has transferred hundreds of prescriptions from retail chains for workers who have moved to the state, she said. Ahead of the vote, the state's top politicians are declining to take sides. Governor Jack Dalrymple, a Republican who took office in 2010, says he shops at locally owned Aerohead Plaza Drug while in Bismarck and believes it has been able to compete effectively with the nearby CVS. Yet in the 1990s, as a state legislator, Dalrymple voted to keep the pharmacy law intact. "I don't know," he now says, "if that was the right vote."

SOLUTION: Big pharmacies knock on door of oil-rich North Dakota.

PROBLEM: The story doesn't mention cost at all. Since Lucentis can cost $2,000 per injection, that's a significant oversight. It would also be useful to tell readers how Lucentis injections compare with the cost of laser treatment. The benefits are, for the most part, reasonably well explained. But those explanations lack numbers to back them up and are overstated in at least one place. "One benefit discussed in the release is that study participants who received laser treatment were more likely to suffer peripheral vision loss than participants who were treated solely with Lucentis although this isn't quantified. A second benefit was that participants who received laser treatment were more likely to require subsequent surgery to remove blood from the eye and this was quantified. But the release pushes things a bit when it comes to vision, or visual acuity. The release states: "At two years, vision in the Lucentis group improved by an average of about half a line on an eye chart, compared with virtually no change in the laser group." But here's how the journal article puts it: "There was no statistically significant visual acuity difference between the ranibizumab and PRP [laser] groups at 2 years. The language in the journal article itself stresses that what was being evaluated was whether Lucentis was at least as good as laser treatment and they found that, after two years, the visual acuity of patients who took Lucentis (and had no laser treatment) was as good as patients who had the laser treatment. The release could have simply stated this and avoided confusion. In short, this was a close one but the lack of numbers on peripheral vision and the overstatement of the visual acuity results make this a "Not Satisfactory." The release mentions that one study volunteer in the Lucentis group developed an eye infection and stated that "serious systemic adverse events," namely cardiac arrest and stroke, occurred at similar rates among the two groups undergoing the two different procedures. We'll rate that satisfactory for the disclosure although the release might have gone even further by mentioning the other side effects named in the study including inflammation and elevated intraocular pressure which occurred in both treatment groups. The release does a good job of describing the study design, the number of participants, and the fact that this was a randomized clinical trial. A few words about the limitations of the study e.g. the investigators and patients could not be masked to which treatment they were getting, would have be useful as well. No disease mongering here. The release does tell readers that the study was funded by the National Eye Institute. However, it does not make clear that Lloyd Paul Aiello who is quoted in the release was also a co-author of the journal article. The release also fails to mention that several co-authors receive research funding or consulting fees from Genentech, which developed ranibizumab and markets it in the U.S., and Novartis, which markets the drug outside the U.S. The release does a good job of comparing Lucentis to conventional laser treatment for PDR and we'll award a Satisfactory rating on that basis. However, we'd note that these are not necessarily the only two options. Lucentis is classed as an "anti-VEGF" (anti- vascular endothelial growth factor) drug by blocking a protein called VEGF, the drug can reverse abnormal blood vessel growth and decrease fluid in the retina. Other drugs in this category include Avastin and Eylea. Are those drugs under consideration for trials related to PDR treatment? If so, it's worth mentioning particularly since Avastin costs around $60 per dose, as compared to Lucentis's $2,000 per dose. The release notes that Lucentis is already used to treat other diabetes-related eye problems, and "should be considered a viable treatment option for people with PDR." The clinical trial at issue here appears to be the first to look at the use of Lucentis as a treatment for PDR, particularly in a randomized study with direct comparison to laser treatment. However, the release doesn't tell readers that. On the other hand, the release does make clear that this is the first significant advance in clinical treatment for PDR since the 1970s that's good context. The release does a good job of avoiding hype and explaining what was a complex study.

SOLUTION:
Lucentis Proves Effective Against Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy