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 Input:
No one was killed in the incident in Mato Grosso state, ANM said in a statement. The dam is registered under the name of an individual wildcat miner rather than in the name of a mining company. Inspections of the dam had not turned up any problems, and it had been declared as stable on Sept. 25, the agency said. Brazil remains on high alert for dam ruptures after a tailings dam at a Vale SA iron ore mine burst in January, killing at least 250 people in the second major disaster of its kind in four years.

Ex Output:
Health tourism costs nearly 300 million on some estimates.

Ex Input:
The story does a good job of pointing out one advantage of the pill approach compared to delivery via colonoscopythe reduced cost. "There was a significant difference in cost. Though the procedures were done in a Canadian hospital, the FMTs delivered by colonoscopy cost nearly $500 USD more than the capsules, which cost about $300." This was a close call. Early on, it says the pill was 90% effective for treating recurrentClostridium difficile infections. Later on, the story explains that both were equally successful in treating the Clostridium difficile infections. It would take a bit of deduction to figure out that the 90% treatment rate applies to both the pills and colonoscopies. And the study puts this figure close to 96%. But we'll give the benefit of the doubt and rate it satisfactory. The story gets a satisfactory here for including the differences between the two methods of delivery: One source is quoted saying, "colonoscopies and the anesthesia required for the procedure can put a lot of stress on a person's bodyand can be complicated for the people most at risk for C. difficile infections." It could have gone a step further and reminded readers that a colonoscopy is an invasive procedure with the inherent risks of infection and perforation that obviously aren't there when taking a pill. The story did not mention the other adverse events described in the paper such as nausea and vomiting, though. The story comments on the size of the study and quotes a researcher about strengths (a randomized, controlled trial) and limitations (selection bias) of the study. Selection bias, in this case, means many people were excluded from the clinical trial if they had any number of issues (patients with severe or complicated cases were excluded, for example), potentially biasing the results. In a more real-world setting, the effectiveness rate may drop once it's tried on a wider range of people. No disease mongering here. The story does include comments from an independent source unaffiliated with the research. But, it doesn't specify that the source has received research money from a drug company that's developing microbiome drugs. Standard treatment for C. diff is antibiotics. This should have been mentioned. Unfortunately, the story doesn't spell out whether the pill form FMT is now, or soon will be, available to the public. The story does mention that numerous other clinical trials are using FMT as a possible treatment for various diseases but it is unclear whether the pill form is an option for physicians at this point. What's new here is that a pill form for delivery of a fecal transplant is being tested against a colonoscopy. The story established this. It does not appear to rely on a news release.

Ex Output:
Fecal transplant via a pill? Newsweek's coverage points out possible selection bias of study participants

Ex Input:
There's no mention of the cost of these procedures or whether they are covered by insurance. The average cost of gastric bypass surgery is $23,000, the average cost of lap band is $14,500, and the average cost of sleeve gastrectomy surgery $14,900, according to the web site ObesityCoverage. The story states: "Before surgery, only 3 percent of the teens had no cardiac risk factors at all, but three years later, just over half of them (52 percent) had no risk factors. Just 5 percent had all four cardiac risk factors before their surgeries, but none had all of them three years later. In fact, the majority of the participants 83 percent had only one or no risk factors three years after their surgeries. The proportion of participants with two or three risk factors also dropped substantially." This is a useful start,but the story needed to remind readers: Changes in risk factors predicated on lab values are surrogate markers, so they may not actually lead to improved "heart health" as the story states. The story states that the weight-reduction procedures "carry the same risks as any surgical procedure, such as infections, blood clots and bleeding" as well as nutritional and vitamin deficiencies. It also states that gastric banding "has low effectiveness and a risk of the band slipping down the stomach." Note: The most risky complications (problems arising from general anesthesia) were not mentioned. The story describes how the study was conducted and provides important caveats, stating: "The study's biggest limitation is its very selective population. Most of the participants were female, most were white, and most received the gastric bypass. Children of color have the greatest risk of obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, but it's not clear if they would see the same improvement with these procedures." It also mentions that the study included "only teens with the greatest obesity who were also unsuccessful trying other weight loss methods. Further, it points out the need for longer-term data of 10 or 15 years. The story does not mention one inherent weakness of this study: The lack of a comparison group that did not receive surgery. [Editor's note: We updated the final sentence in this criterion to strike the phrase "observational studies" and replace it with "this study."] The story does not engage in disease-mongering. It states that an estimated 4 to 7 percent of teens have severe obesity. The story includes two sources who were not part of the study. The story does a good job here, quoting Geetha Raghuveer, a pediatric cardiologist at Children's Mercy Kansas City in Missouri who, it reports, was not involved in the study. Raghuveer is quoted saying surgery "would be considered for the highly obese and those not responding to any behavioral modifications, physical activity or calorie restriction." Further, the story says, Raghuveer endorses public health efforts that "aim for better obesity prevention, including parent education and interventions when children are toddlers and preschoolers." "The big question is, how do we prevent obese kids from getting to this point where they would need an invasive surgical procedure?" Raghuveer says in the story. The story mentions that 1,600 teens undergo stomach reduction surgeries each year, which suggests that they are widely available. It also mentions the need to seek counseling and "detailed information from well-established bariatric surgery centers that are specifically dedicated to treating adolescents." However, one big key to availability is insurance coverageand this was not mentioned. The story mentions that this study includes more patients than some previous studies that looked at the impact of surgery on teens with severe obesity, and it quotes the study's author saying it "serves to reinforce the benefits of bariatric surgery as a safe and effective treatment strategy that should be considered sooner rather than later." Also, the the study of cardiac risk factors and how they are affected is novel, as well, and that's clear in the story. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.

Ex Output:
Bariatric Surgery Helps Teens With Severe Obesity Reduce Heart Disease Risk