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]: The story does not talk about costs, which was disappointing. The costs of intensive medical therapy can easily be identified. Using an online pharmacy we calculated the costs to be about $1,500 to $2,000 annually for medical therapy, using generic drugs. Using the Health CareBlue Book, we found the average cost of coronary artery bypass sugery and hospitalization to be about $62,000. We think that this is important information for readers that should have been included. The quantification here was presented in such a way to make it clear to readers that there was no significant benefit found to surgical intervention, which is a fair conclusion to draw from the study. The story says, "In the Stich study, 41% of patients assigned to treatment with drugs alone died during the follow-up period, which averaged five years. That compared with a mortality rate of 36% among patients who received bypass surgery plus medication. Although the relative reduction in risk of death was 14%, the result didn't meet tests for statistical significance, meaning it could have resulted from chance alone."That's a great way to describe the lack of statistical significance. It would have been even more powerful to show readers the actual number of patients who died in each group. The story provides great information about the study itself and about the overall state of the evidence supporting heart surgery. "How best to treat these patients has been fraught with uncertainty," is one of the more notable phrases from the story. It also says, "Many patients aren't evaluated for heart surgery to treat diseased arteries because they don't suffer classic chest pain or because doctors worry that hearts weakened by heart failure won't benefit from the procedure. Other doctors recommend immediate bypass surgery despite a lack of vigorous studies to support that strategy." The story does not engage in disease-mongering and takes a very careful approach to describing the types of patients who would be affected by this study's results. We also like the way they provided snapshots of patients who were in both arms of the study surgery and non-surgery at the end of the story, making it clear, as the study did, that both routes can be equally successful. The story brings in some strong independent voices who help make sense of this complicated study: James Fang, a cardiologist at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, Raymond Gibbons, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, and Clyde Yancy, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. Rarely do you see a story that spends as much time with independent experts as it does with the authors of the study. The story does a great job showing how the standard interventions for heart disease stacked up against each other in this study. We wish that some mention had been made of diet and exercise and that at least a sentence had been included about whether there might be differences in outcomes seen as a result of different medication patterns. The story doesn't make it clear what exactly the patients were taking. The story makes it clear that the range of treatments studied by the authors are widely available. The story makes it clear that there is a great need for more evidence in this field and that this study will be surprising to many clinicians because of a long-held assumption that surgery is the superior option. tudies published in the early 1990s supported the view that bypass surgery provided a better long term outcome. The story does not rely on a news release.
[EX A]: More Options Before Bypass Surgery, Study Finds

[EX Q]: Jose Miguel Cisneros, director of the infectious disease department at Seville's Virgen del Rocio Hospital, on Tuesday announced the first casualty since the outbreak was declared on Aug. 15. Authorities have closed the pork meat supplier's plant and recalled all of its products. Cisneros said roughly half of the 114 people affected by the bacteria remain hospitalized. Health Minister Maria Luisa Carcedo said an investigation is looking into how the meat evaded what she called "strict food safety controls." Listeria is a bacteria that usually causes mild illness in healthy people but can be dangerous to pregnant women and those with weakened immune systems.
[EX A]: Woman dies in Spain as listeria-in-pork outbreak sickens 114.

[EX Q]: The story made no mention of costs, societal, personal, or otherwise. Benefits, or lack thereof in this case, were not quantified. Instead, the journalist reported that men who were alive were no more likely to be screened for prostate cancer than men who were deceased. But, the actual numbers of men alive and deceased were not provided nor the proportion who indicated they had been screened or not screened. The potential harms of screening are appropriately discussed, namely that screening could be wrong (false positive or false negative), could lead to further testing (biopsy), and that detection could lead to treatment which has serious side effects without knowing for sure whether the cancer would have harmed you in the first place. The observational study design is described to readers (e.g. that two groups were chosen during a particular time period and matched). IThe story also talks about limitationsthat this is a small study and that this is not the final word on screening (presumably because study is observational and not a randomized clinical trial). The natural history of prostate cancer is appropriately reflected here that is, that prostate cancer may not kill you or even cause problems because it is often slow-growing and that screening and early treatment may do more harm than good. It tells readers in the opening lines that there is an on-going debate about screening. The study co-author is quoted, but his relationship to the study is disclosed. Representatives from medical organizations that issue recommendations about prostate cancer screening were quoted as well, namely confirming the uncertainty of screening. A U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review from 2002 is also mentioned, further providing support for uncertainty of screening based on an objective review of the evidence. These sources also highlight that this uncertainty is not new. This story does provide information on the alternative to screening, in other words, not to be screened. Phrases such as "men should decide for themselves whether to get screened" and "for some men, detecting prostate cancer early can do more harm than good" appropriately develop the concept of not being screened compared to being screened. Disadvantages/advantages of screening and not screening are discussed (potential for downstream consequences, may not help men live longer, etc.). The story provides information on how long screening has been available. Likewise, it also states that these screening tests are performed millions of times each year in the U.S. The story states that results from study on prostate cancer screening are based on data from 24 through 129the "early years of prostate cancer screening." So, the story does tell us that prostate cancer screening is not new.
[EX A]:
Study Questions Prostate Cancer Screening