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.

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.
Lucentis Proves Effective Against Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Australia and Japan have joined the list of almost 100 nations now limiting arrivals of people from South Korea, which reported 760 coronavirus cases on Thursday for a total of 6,088. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Japan will suspend existing visas for visitors from China and South Korea and quarantine them for two weeks in response to the widening outbreak of the flu-like virus. The measures will go into effect on March 9. Following the announcement, the South Korean Foreign Ministry summoned a Japanese diplomat to "hear Japan's explanations regarding its announcement," Yonhap news agency reported, citing a ministry official. The South Korean government declared a "special care zone" around Gyeongsan, a city of about 275,000 people 250 km (150 miles) southeast of Seoul, promising extra resources such as face masks. Gyeongsan has seen a spike in cases in recent days, many of them linked to a fringe Christian group at the center of South Korea's outbreak. Similar zones have been declared around the neighboring city of Daegu and Cheongdo County. About 75% of all cases in South Korea are in and around Daegu, its fourth-largest city, according to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC). "Every day is sad and tough like a war. But our Daegu citizens are showing surprise wisdom and courage," Daegu Mayor Kwon Young-jin told reporters on Thursday. About 2,120 patients were waiting for hospital beds in Daegu, city officials said. Dozens of newly commissioned military nurses were due to begin work in the city on Thursday, according to the health ministry. The KCDC reported five more deaths from the virus, bringing the total to 37. The virus surfaced in China late last year and has infected more than 95,300 people and killed almost 3,300 worldwide, mostly in China, according to a Reuters tally. South Korea also said it was banning the export of face masks, and would step up their production and ration them to limit individual purchases to two a week, in an attempt to ease shortages and curb hoarding. People have flocked to supermarkets, pharmacies and online distributors to snap up masks and other supplies, with hundreds lining up at some stores every morning. KCDC Deputy Director Kwon Jun-wook advised all South Koreans to stay home and avoid "any gatherings, especially those that take place in enclosed places with many people such as religious events". He also advised employers in Asia's fourth-largest economy, highlighted by tech giants like Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, to allow staff to work from home. U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) reported two new cases, for a total of six among soldiers, employees or people related to the roughly 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea. Despite the new cases, USFK had resumed sending troops to bases in Daegu and surrounding areas, according to the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. It said commanders believed the bases were protected from the outside population, and troop rotations were needed to maintain readiness in the face of threats from nuclear-armed North Korea. Australia's ban on the arrival of foreigners from South Korea is a blow to Seoul's efforts to prevent the United States from imposing such restrictions. "It is a deeply regrettable step, and we will closely consult Australian authorities for a swift revocation of the measure and to minimize inconvenience for our citizens," Foreign Ministry spokesman Kim In-chul told reporters. South Korean officials met the U.S. ambassador in Seoul on Wednesday to urge the United States not to limit travel. Similar talks would be held on Friday with diplomats from other nations, the Foreign Ministry said. According to the U.S. State Department, anyone with a fever of 100.4 Fahrenheit (38 Celsius) is already banned from boarding direct flights from South Korea to the United States. Korean Air Lines said it would screen all departing passengers for high temperatures and reject those deemed a risk. South Korea also sent three "rapid response" teams to Vietnam on Thursday to help more than 270 citizens quarantined there over coronavirus concerns, the Foreign Ministry said.
South Korea declares new 'special care zone' as coronavirus spreads.

No discussion of costs. Yes, we know that it's too early to use this in clinical settings, but the story makes the case that this builds on research following patients for as long as 12 years. Any predictive test would hold appeal for many people so cost ramifications are important to discuss even at this early stage. Both tests are available at the present time so that with a little bit of digging, the costs could have been provided. We'll give the story a satisfactory grade for providing context for the projected benefits of the test: "A new study suggests that biomarkers found in cerebrospinal fluid (fluid that surrounds the spinal cord and brain and acts as a protective cushion) could predict who would develop Alzheimer's disease 90% of the time among patients with mild cognitive impairment, a condition characterized by measurable memory problems. Knowing which patient withmild cognitive impairment patients may go on to developAlzheimer's is vital information for researchers, who are looking for treatments for the fatal brain disease. The current thinking is that interventions will be most effective when given to a patient as early as possible." But the story is quick to note that it's too early to use this as a diagnostic tool in clinical settings. The story did make several stabs at touching on harms, reporting: "Some of the participants, who were originally found to be stable with mild cognitive impairment after about five years, went on to develop Alzheimer's disease during the longer follow-up. That suggests that a five-year follow-up period is not long enough to determine how well biomarkers can predict which patients will develop Alzheimer's disease, researchers say." And it did end with this: "As scientists gain more insight into predicting Alzheimer's, aging adults may struggle with the question of whether they want to know their risk, especially since there's still no cure. Some people want to enroll in clinical trials as soon as they start showing symptoms; others would rather be ignorant of their status since there is no cure." We think these could have been framed more clearly as potential harms, but we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this one. The story did an adequate job explaining what the study found, what it might mean, but what it does not yet mean. There was no disease-mongering in the story. In fact, it explained that "not everyone with this condition is a good candidate for an Alzheimer's trial." One independent expert's comments added needed perspective to the findings. That independent expert added this important reminder: "What I tell people is: If they're worried about their thinking abilities, that they should make an appointment with a neuropsychology or a neurologist to get an evaluation," Brinkman says. "The way we diagnose Alzheimer's disease is by evaluating the behavior and the risk factor medical profile, not by looking at biological markers at this point." Again, the independent expert's perspective was important: "When these sorts of studies get published, Brickman and other doctors get phone calls from aging adults wondering whether they should be getting spinal taps to assess their risk. But it's too early to use this as a diagnostic tool in clinical settings, says Brickman. Down the road, the "fantasy" is that asymptomatic people will be able to get a biomarker test to determine whether they'll one day get Alzheimer's, but that's not possible right now, he adds." The story was clear that: It's clear that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
Spinal tap may predict Alzheimer's years ahead