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.

[EX Q]: Researchers studied the medical records of more than 1 million children and young adults aged 2 to 24 who were taking or had taken stimulants such as Ritalin or Adderall and found no sign of increased risk of heart problems. "We don't see any evidence of increased risk," said Dr. William Cooper of Vanderbilt University, whose study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study in children is the first of three commissioned by the Food and Drug Administration to understand the potential heart risks of the drugs after U.S. and Canadian regulators received a number of reports in 2006 of heart attacks, strokes and sudden cardiac arrest in children taking the medications. The reports prompted several FDA advisory committee hearings on heart problems, and Health Canada temporarily suspended marketing of ADHD drugs. The concerns also prompted the American Heart Association to issue guidelines suggesting that children who were just starting to take the drugs should be tested for potential underlying heart problems. "There was a lot of concern and confusion among families and providers about what the best approach would be to treating kids who had ADHD and who might benefit from these medicines," Cooper said by phone. ADHD is one of the most common child mental disorders, affecting around 3 to 5 percent of children globally. Children with ADHD are excessively restless, impulsive and easily distracted, and often have trouble at home and in school. There is no cure, but the symptoms can be kept in check by a combination of behavioral therapy and medication. In the United States, some 2.7 million children have prescriptions for ADHD drugs including Novartis' Ritalin or methylphenidate and Focalin; Johnson & Johnson's Concerta, Shire's Adderall and Vyvanse and Eli Lilly's Strattera. For the study, Cooper's team used prescription data from four large, geographically and demographically diverse health plans on 1,200,438 children and youth, including both current and past users of the drugs. They checked health records for evidence of heart problems, including heart attacks, strokes and sudden cardiac deaths, in children who were currently taking the drugs or who had taken them. The team found no increased risk of heart problems for either current or past users of the drugs. Yet because there were so few cases of serious heart problems just 81 the study may not have been large enough to detect it. But even if there were a risk of heart problems, it is extremely slight, Cooper said. In a guidance document issued on Tuesday, the FDA said it continues to recommend that the drugs not be used in patients with serious heart problems. It added that patients should be monitored for changes in heart rate or blood pressure. Jefferies analyst Peter Welford said the findings will likely reassure investors in Shire, maker of Adderall and Vyvanse. But because there were so few heart problems, the study was underpowered and cannot conclusively dispel concerns about cardiovascular risks. Shire's shares were flat on Tuesday, outperforming a sharply lower market.
[EX A]: ADHD drugs do not increase heart problems in kids.

[EX Q]: We were surprised to see that a story that covered as much ground as this one did somehow missed costs. The competing story by NBC spelled out the costs. The story nicely explained that while one of the new studies showed, as expected, that following the updated statin guidelines did increase the number of people who would be treated with statins, following the guidelines would apparently not have saved a significant number of people from dying or having a heart attackor stroke. The story said, "Among the people eligible for statins under the old guidelines, 6.9 percent had a heart attack orstrokeor died from coronary disease over the ensuing nine years. Among those eligible for statins under the new guidelines, the figure was 6.3 percent, almost as high. That suggests that the new guidelines do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins." At the same time, the story noted that the new guidelines "over all did a better job in discriminating between those who should and should not get statins." It said that "only 1 percent of participants deemed ineligible for statins under the new guidelines had a heart attack or stroke over nine years, compared with 2.4 percent of those ineligible under the old guidelines." While an NBC story also used absolute numbers in talking about the potential benefits in terms of heart attacks, we liked the greater level of context provided in the Times piece. Nevertheless, we think it would have been useful for the Times to include the Number Needed to Treat in its discussion of benefits this is an easy-to-understand metric that was reported in the study. In addition, we question the Times's contention that the new criteria "do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins." According to the study, approximately 94% of both guideline groups did not have a cardiovascular event, and yet the new criteria now extend the use of statins to much larger number of people. In light of such findings, it's unclear that the new criteria don't lead to unnecessary treatment for more people as the Time states. We wish the story had explored this result more thoroughly. We thought that NBC did a better job detailing some of the potential harms from statin use, but we give the Times credit here for framing the story as a discussion of risks vs. benefits and making it clear that experts critical of the new guidelines believe that they "would lead millions of additional people to take statins, exposing them to potential side effects such asmuscle painor damage with little to gain." Covering two studies in little more than 1,000 words is already a feat. Doing so while bringing in enough context to explain the caveats to the study is an order of magnitude greater. Compared to the NBCpiece, the Times did a superior job showing that, despite the enthusiasm in some quarters of the scientific community, the two studies did not settle the debate over whether statins should be more widely prescribed. The story did not engage in disease mongering. The story sought out and made good use of independent sources. It mentions that the guidelines were widely criticized and links to some printed criticisms made at the time. It quotes a variety of supportive and critical researchers regarding their opinions on the new research. The storydid not make any reference to dietary changes, lifestyle changes, or exercise. The story made it clear that statins are widely prescribed. One in four Americans take them by some estimates. The story established that the findings of the studies were not novel but rather were in keeping with earlier findings about statins. Because it contains comments from independent experts, we can be sure the story did not rely excessively on any news release.
[EX A]: 2 Studies Back Guidelines for Wider Use of Statins

[EX Q]: The story does not mention the cost of mammography (or of follow up tests and treatments) to the individual, or, collectively, to society. Based on the results of this study, 2,500 women would have to be screened every other year for a decade in order to prevent one death from breast cancer. As the story points out, during that same time 1,000 of those women would have at least one false alarm and 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy, thus adding to the price tag. The story reports both the 10 percent reduction in breast cancer deaths that the researchers attributed to screening, as well as the calculation that 2,500 women would have to be screened for a decade to prevent one breast cancer death. The story points out that there are many false alarms among women who are screened with mammography and that most of the cancers that are found and treated would not have been lethal. It notes calculations from an editorial accompanying the study that for every breast cancer death prevented five or more women are treated for tumors that would never have become lethal. The story accurately describes the study and highlights some of the advantages of the methods used in this study compared to earlier studies. We wish it had mentioned some of the limitations of the observational methods used. For instance, the researchers mentioned that a longer study may have found a larger benefit to screening. Nonetheless, we'll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story does not exaggerate the threat of breast cancer and emphasizes that this study and others indicate that the effect of mammography screening is more modest than most women believe. The story includes more than one independent source. However, the story does not tell readers the sources of funding, which were the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. The story highlights experts talking about the decision about whether or not to get screening mammograms, and therefore addresses even the option of foregoing mammograms. Although the availability of mammography is not at issue in this story, it could have pointed out that the researchers attributed most of the decrease in breast cancer deaths to multidisciplinary breast cancer management teams. While all the women screened by mammography in Norway had access to these expert teams, women in the U.S. who get mammography may not have access to this sort of treatment support. In this case, the novelty of the approach is the study method. The story reports that Norway provided researchers with a unique opportunity, since mammography screening was phased in over a nine year period, thus allowing researchers to compare the outcomes of women who were screened to similar women who were not. The story includes interviews and other information that does not appear to come from a news release.
[EX A]:
New study widens debate on the value of mammograms