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.

Let me give you an 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."
The answer to this example can be: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Here is why: 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.

OK. solve this:
"The story mentioned that CT scans are faster and better at diagnosing certain problems than are other types of imaging. It did not, however, provide information about the costs of various types of imaging or whether there were differences in terms of costs covered by insurance. Since the story focused on the harms of the approach, quantifying the benefits of CT scans is not imperative in this case. The article fails to flesh out the quantification of the effect under study, namely additional risk of cancers. While the source study reports on ""attributable risk"" of cancer and cancer-deaths due to CT scanning, it would be helpful for the viewer to know what this means in terms of numbers of cancers and risk to the individual. The story mentioned that it was reporting on information in a recently published article in the New England Journal of Medicine. However they did not report on the nature of the study. They did not mention the methods used to estimated the additional risk due to CT radiation exposure. The source article mentions that a more definitive prospective observational study is ongoing. This story should have pointed out the possible limitations of the study. The story reported that the article it discussed estimated that the percentage of cancer caused by CT scans will increase from 0.4% to 2.0%. It did not, however explain that the content was extrapolated from epidemiological data and estimation of radiation doses. It would have been useful to provide a framework to understand the relative significance of the reported onincrease in number of cancers. How does it compare, for example to the numbers of cancers due to cigarette smoking? The reporter interviewed two sources in the story. One was the first author of the article being reported on. One appeared not to be involved in the study reported on. It would have been helpful to clearly identify the doctors beyond their names to explain why they were interviewed. Two other scanning methods -MRI and ultrasound were briefly mentioned. The story did not include information about availability of CT scans (i.e. in hospital setting, in free standing imaging centers). However, the point of the story was that the technology is over used. While not meeting our usual standard of describing availability, the context of the news spot makes this less important. Although the story mentioned that patients ought to make sure that the doctor gives you 'the least possible dose', it did not inform the viewer that this option is not available on all CT equipment. The story was clear that it wasn't reporting on a new approach but rather on the increased use of an existing diagnostic method. While mentioning that 'many of these CT scans are unnecessary' the story did little in terms of better enabling a viewer to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary scans. Does not appear to rely solely or largely on a press release."
Answer:
CT scans add to cancer risk