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: As with the HealthDay story we reviewed, there was no discussion of costs of the banding procedure nor for regular office visits for band adjustment. Although these costs were not detailed in the study reported on, this information is readily available. We think that this is unfortunate given the magnitude of the cost of the procedure. We also would have liked to have seen a comment or two about insurance coverage The only benefit reported on in this story was the average loss of excess weight experienced by those who had had the procedure and in those who still had their Lap-Bands at the end of the study period. The story did a good job providing information about the common harms, along with the percentage of individuals affected. The story did not engage in overt disease-mongering. The story included interview comments from a company spokesperson and one of the authors of the study, both of whom were clearly identified. The story also included this important detail about the quoted author, which was missed by the HealthDay story we reviewed. "Himpens reports consultant work for Ethicon Endosurgery, which makes another gastric band, Realize, and for Covidien, a health care products company." In addition, the story had comments from two surgeons who do not appear to have direct ties with either the manufacturer of the product or the study reported on. We were a little concerned about some of the phrasing in the story. It says, "But some, including the manufacturer of the Lap-Band used in a technique called laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding take exception to the study, criticizing the small sample size and the number of patients lost to follow-up.The critics also point out that both the device itself and the expertise of surgeons placing it have improved greatly since the patients in the study had their bands placed, in the years 1994 through 1997." This leads readers to believe that there are mulitple critics out there pointing out flaws in the study. The story itself, though, only quotes one actual critic: the company spokewoman. The criticisms may be valid, but readers deserved a strong independent analysis of the study's limitations. While the story did mention at the very end how the pace of weight loss with the product reported on compared with weight loss following gastric bypass surgery, the story ought to have provided better insight about the long-term outcomes in those who have gastric bypass and those who chose not to have surgery to help manage their excess weight. That way, readers could compare the two commonly utilized surgical options and understand the differences between them. The story hints at this by paraphrasing a study author saying that Lap-Band patients, "may have less weight loss and more complications than those who choose other weight loss surgeries." But it never provides any evidence to back that claim. We also would have liked to have seen some comment about diet and exercise. The story makes it clear that the gastric banding procedure is available and provides a link to information from the National Institutes of Health. The story was clear that it was not reporting on a new or novel treatment but rather was reporting on the long-term outcomes presented in a recent research paper. This story does not appear to be based exclusively on a news release.
Solution:
Study: Poor Results From Lap-Band Surgery