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.
One 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 is here: 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.

Now, solve this: The story made no mention of costs, societal, personal, or otherwise. Benefits, or lack thereof in this case, were not quantified. Instead, the journalist reported that men who were alive were no more likely to be screened for prostate cancer than men who were deceased. But, the actual numbers of men alive and deceased were not provided nor the proportion who indicated they had been screened or not screened. The potential harms of screening are appropriately discussed, namely that screening could be wrong (false positive or false negative), could lead to further testing (biopsy), and that detection could lead to treatment which has serious side effects without knowing for sure whether the cancer would have harmed you in the first place. The observational study design is described to readers (e.g. that two groups were chosen during a particular time period and matched). IThe story also talks about limitationsthat this is a small study and that this is not the final word on screening (presumably because study is observational and not a randomized clinical trial). The natural history of prostate cancer is appropriately reflected here that is, that prostate cancer may not kill you or even cause problems because it is often slow-growing and that screening and early treatment may do more harm than good. It tells readers in the opening lines that there is an on-going debate about screening. The study co-author is quoted, but his relationship to the study is disclosed. Representatives from medical organizations that issue recommendations about prostate cancer screening were quoted as well, namely confirming the uncertainty of screening. A U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review from 2002 is also mentioned, further providing support for uncertainty of screening based on an objective review of the evidence. These sources also highlight that this uncertainty is not new. This story does provide information on the alternative to screening, in other words, not to be screened. Phrases such as "men should decide for themselves whether to get screened" and "for some men, detecting prostate cancer early can do more harm than good" appropriately develop the concept of not being screened compared to being screened. Disadvantages/advantages of screening and not screening are discussed (potential for downstream consequences, may not help men live longer, etc.). The story provides information on how long screening has been available. Likewise, it also states that these screening tests are performed millions of times each year in the U.S. The story states that results from study on prostate cancer screening are based on data from 24 through 129the "early years of prostate cancer screening." So, the story does tell us that prostate cancer screening is not new.
Solution:
Study Questions Prostate Cancer Screening