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.

Q: More than 250 cases of H7N9 have been reported to the National Health and Family Planning Commission from 16 provinces and regions. State media said Thursday that most of the illnesses occurred in and around China's eastern and southern coast, from Shanghai to Hong Kong. At least six more deaths have been reported thus far in February, raising concerns China faces a public health crisis more severe than the 2013 outbreak that killed at least 40 people and devastated the poultry industry. January's death toll was the highest for any month since at least November 2013, according to the health commission's website. Local authorities have ordered temporary shutdowns of some poultry markets and ramped up testing. In Guangzhou, China's third-largest city, more than 30 percent of the live poultry markets were recently found to be contaminated with H7N9. H7N9 is considered to be less virulent than the H5N1 strain that the World Health Organization has linked to hundreds of deaths worldwide over the last decade. H7N9 is not believed to be transmitted between humans, but rather by infected poultry. The WHO issued a Feb. 10 alert linking an increase in cases to the Lunar New Year, China's biggest holiday, with feasts and parties throughout a weeklong celebration. This year's Lunar New Year was Jan. 28. "As traditionally the consumption of poultry among the general population increases during the Chinese New Year celebrations, the movement, trade and slaughter of poultry during this period may subsequently increase human exposure," the WHO alert said.

A: China Jan. bird flu deaths hit 79, most since at least 2013.
****
Q: "Like its competitors, the Times did not discuss costsanomissionwhich perhaps is more acceptable in this story since it clearly indicated that this is not very close to being a marketable product. Nevertheless, we would have liked to have seen some mention of the financial impact. Many patients with type 1 diabetes are not using currently available pumps and sensors because of the high cost of these devices. It seems likely that this new treatment, if it ever becomes widely available, will be as expensive or more so than the current pump and sensor technology. We applaud the Times for avoiding the term ""artificial pancreas"" in the headline and using it sparingly in the body of the story. The competing stories couldn't resist it. We can understand whymarketers and media relations people would favor this term because of its promotional value, but we don't think it's agood way to describe this technology in an objective piece of journalism. ""Artificial pancreas"" is misleading because we're not really anywhere close tobeing able to replicate what the normal human pancreasdoes through artificial technology. Forgetting for a momentthat the pancreas does much morethan simply dispense insulin (it alsoproduces a number of other hormones anddigestive enzymes that aren't impacted by diabetes),what's more important is how the pancreas worksin concert withthe brain and other systems to regulateglucose in a very tight range. The normal human pancreas starts releasinginsulin beforewe eat in response to complex environmental cues, whereas any artificial system would need tobe told thatmeal is coming or react to therise in glucose after thefact. Plus,insulinproduced by the bodystarts acting rightaway, whereas insulin analogues take about 20 minutes to takeeffect. Put this all together and we see that the ""artificial pancreas"" will, for the foreseeable future, require human intervention to predictpost-mealinsulin needs and dosing or else patients will be at risk of post-meal blood sugar spikes. And it's not at all clear that such a systemwill improve overall bloodsugar management compared with existing methods. The term""artificial pancreas"" conjures up a vision of totally automated glucose management and essentially a ""cure"" for type 1 diabetes. This isoverselling what the technology can do. The Times waited until the last 3 paragraphs of an 1,100-word story to hintthat an automated system could deliver unsafe doses of insulin. It isn't until the last sentence thatwe learn that the system would need to be ""exquisitely reliable"" in order to be safe. We feel the story should have raised these issues earlier and that it could have done more to emphasize just how difficult itwill befor any device to calculate insulin requirements on the fly. Insulin dosingis affected byfactorsranging from how much aperson has exercised to whatand how much they have eaten. It's conceivable that technology can account for all of these variables,but there are a lot ways thingscould go wrong, with potentially deadly results. It's a close call, butwe don't feel thestorydid enough to call attention to these issues. In contrast to its competitors, which allled readersto believe there had been a fully automated system sensing glucose levels and dispensing insulin to the participants in this study, the Times noted thatthe insulin was dispensed by a nurse based oncalculations made by a computer algorithm. The Times clearly indicated that the significance of this test was as a ""proof of concept"" that the algorithm works and is safe, not as a test of any specific device. It noted that a fully automated system combining glucosemonitoring and insulin delivery was still ""hypothetical."" In addition,the Times story wasthe only one to draw attention to the small size of this study and the fact the findings were not statistically significant for the primary outcomes. This noteofcaution was completely lacking from the competingcoverage. The story did not exaggerate the effects of type 1 diabetes. The story includes quotesfrom interviews with one of the study investigators and another researcher, and identifies both as having ties to diabetes products manufacturers. It also quotes an analyst at an investment firm. It would have been better had theyincluded one more source who didn't have commercial ties to specific products. The story describes currently available technology for glucose monitoring and insulin infusion. It describes the limitations of current approaches for managing insulin, especially during the overnight period. The story is a bit misleading in that it leaves the impression that all type 1 diabetics are currently using pumps at night. This is not actually the case. Most people are doing self monitoring of blood glucose and making judgement calls on whether and how much insulin to administer. However, the story does enough for a satisfactory in our view. The Times did a good job of describing the system used in this study and how close it is to being commercially available. It called the system ""experimental""and said that it was ""notfully automated."" It said that a fullyautomated glucose monitor/insulindelivery system was still ""hypothetical"" and would face regulatory hurdles before it could be marketed to the public. The story describes the progression from skin prick glucose testing to continuous monitoring and insulin pumps. It places the new developments in this field on this continuum. There could have beenmore discussion of many of the recent advances that have made daytime hyper- and hypoglycemia less of a problem such asthe newer short-acting insulins. The story did not rely on any news release."

A: Insulin Study Could Lead to New Dosage Devices
****
Q: It's widely known that languages evolve as societies develop and change, but the sounds we utter are also shaped, literally, by the placement of our jaw and that is influenced by how we chew our food, researchers report Thursday in the journal Science. Language study often focuses on cultural factors, "but our work shows that language is also a biological phenomenon you can't fully separate culture and biology," said Balthasar Bickel, a linguist at the University of Zurich and co-author of the new study. The researchers analyzed Stone Age and modern skulls and created simulations of how different jaw placements allow our mouths to make different sounds. They analyzed a database of roughly 2,000 languages more than a quarter of languages in existence today to identify which sounds were more and less frequently used, and where. Languages spoken by groups with hunter-gatherer societies in their more recent past are far less likely to use consonants used by longtime farming societies, the study found. "Our anatomy actually changed the types of sounds being incorporated into languages," Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Buffalo who was not involved in the study, wrote in an email. Before societies cultivated crops and learned to cook food, early humans chewed tough raw meat which was hard work on our jaws and teeth. Stone Age adult skulls don't look like modern skulls. These older skulls have upper and lower teeth closing directly on top of each other whereas today most people have some degree of overbite, with the front teeth extending in front of bottom teeth when the mouth is closed. "If you are raised on softer foods, you don't have the same kind of wear and tear on your bite that your ancestors had, so you keep an overbite," said Bickel. Eating softer foods not only sets the jaw in a different fashion, but also changes which sounds are easily pronounced. In particular, it becomes much easier to say "f and "v," which linguists call "labiodental" sounds. (Try it. Put your upper and lower incisors or "front teeth" directly on top of each other and try say "favor." It's difficult.) The researchers looked closely at 52 languages from what is called the Indo-European language group including dialects spoken from Iceland to India and charted how the "f and "v sounds appeared in a rising number of languages over time. As more societies developed agriculture and traded in raw meat for softer fare whether it's cooked meat and potatoes, or rice and stewed vegetables these sounds became more common, the researchers found. "New sounds get introduced into languages, and then are more widely adopted," said Steven Moran, also a linguist at the University of Zurich and co-author of the paper. The notion that agriculture shaped language was first suggested decades ago by American linguist Charles Hockett, but he did not attempt to prove it. Elan Dresher, a linguist at the University of Toronto who was not involved in the study, commended testing Hockett's theory, but said the research could be fine-tuned by looking at historical reconstructions of languages, rather than using language databases to make comparisons. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

A:
The way you speak now was shaped by what your ancestors ate.
****