Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: "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
Explanation: 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.

Problem: Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital plans to open a second proton therapy center in 2020, and Mercy Hospital St. Louis expects to open its own proton center two years later, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported . Proton therapy zap cancerous cells with precise beams of radiation while sparing surrounding tissue. Unlike traditional X-rays, the proton beams stop at the tumor instead of traveling through the body. The new $32 million proton system planned at Barnes-Jewish Hospital will provide "pencil-beam" precision to target tumors, said Dr. Jeffrey Bradley, director of Siteman's S. Lee Kling Proton Therapy Center. It will be built next to a $20 million machine, which opened in late 2013, that uses magnets to scatter proton beams across a tumor. Siteman has treated about 800 patients with the proton therapy, close to its projections of 200 patients a year. The first proton centers built in the 1990s were known for their football-field size and up to $200 million price tag. To offset the costs, the centers marketed heavily to men with prostate cancer, despite a lack of evidence that patients have better outcomes or fewer side effects compared to cheaper treatment alternatives. In 2013, Washington University was the first to open a smaller, less-expensive proton system with one treatment room. "That's very different from other centers that went all in, borrowed money, and put in four-room centers," Bradley said. "The one room at a time idea is a very viable idea." Bradley and other radiation oncologists say a major hurdle is insurance companies' reluctance to cover proton therapy. That can cost 50 percent to 75 percent more than traditional radiation, according to industry groups. "Where the insurers like to say that proton therapy is not beneficial is often because they do not perform an adequate review of the evidence," said Scott Warwick, executive director of the National Association for Proton Therapy. "We have notified the payers that they have often either misinterpreted data, reviewed older evidence or omitted key evidence in development of their coverage policies." ___ Information from: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, http://www.stltoday.com
Solution:
St. Louis medical organizations plan more proton therapy.