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.

Example Input: We were surprised to see that a story that covered as much ground as this one did somehow missed costs. The competing story by NBC spelled out the costs. The story nicely explained that while one of the new studies showed, as expected, that following the updated statin guidelines did increase the number of people who would be treated with statins, following the guidelines would apparently not have saved a significant number of people from dying or having a heart attackor stroke. The story said, "Among the people eligible for statins under the old guidelines, 6.9 percent had a heart attack orstrokeor died from coronary disease over the ensuing nine years. Among those eligible for statins under the new guidelines, the figure was 6.3 percent, almost as high. That suggests that the new guidelines do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins." At the same time, the story noted that the new guidelines "over all did a better job in discriminating between those who should and should not get statins." It said that "only 1 percent of participants deemed ineligible for statins under the new guidelines had a heart attack or stroke over nine years, compared with 2.4 percent of those ineligible under the old guidelines." While an NBC story also used absolute numbers in talking about the potential benefits in terms of heart attacks, we liked the greater level of context provided in the Times piece. Nevertheless, we think it would have been useful for the Times to include the Number Needed to Treat in its discussion of benefits this is an easy-to-understand metric that was reported in the study. In addition, we question the Times's contention that the new criteria "do not lead to treatment of many more people who do not need statins." According to the study, approximately 94% of both guideline groups did not have a cardiovascular event, and yet the new criteria now extend the use of statins to much larger number of people. In light of such findings, it's unclear that the new criteria don't lead to unnecessary treatment for more people as the Time states. We wish the story had explored this result more thoroughly. We thought that NBC did a better job detailing some of the potential harms from statin use, but we give the Times credit here for framing the story as a discussion of risks vs. benefits and making it clear that experts critical of the new guidelines believe that they "would lead millions of additional people to take statins, exposing them to potential side effects such asmuscle painor damage with little to gain." Covering two studies in little more than 1,000 words is already a feat. Doing so while bringing in enough context to explain the caveats to the study is an order of magnitude greater. Compared to the NBCpiece, the Times did a superior job showing that, despite the enthusiasm in some quarters of the scientific community, the two studies did not settle the debate over whether statins should be more widely prescribed. The story did not engage in disease mongering. The story sought out and made good use of independent sources. It mentions that the guidelines were widely criticized and links to some printed criticisms made at the time. It quotes a variety of supportive and critical researchers regarding their opinions on the new research. The storydid not make any reference to dietary changes, lifestyle changes, or exercise. The story made it clear that statins are widely prescribed. One in four Americans take them by some estimates. The story established that the findings of the studies were not novel but rather were in keeping with earlier findings about statins. Because it contains comments from independent experts, we can be sure the story did not rely excessively on any news release.
Example Output: 2 Studies Back Guidelines for Wider Use of Statins

Example Input: Coaches and many youth athletes automatically would undergo training to detect signs of a concussion and understand the potential consequences of a brain injury under rules proposed by the New Mexico Department of Health. The agency has scheduled a public hearing later this month on the proposal requiring annual training about concussions not only of coaches but also parents and young athletes themselves once they turn 11. Agency official were unavailable Friday for comment. Those children would sign a form each year that shows they completed brain-injury prevention training session linked to standards from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2010, New Mexico adopted far-reaching prevention and education measures to address concussions and potential brain injuries in school sports, and more recent legislation in 2017 extended training and education to student athletes. State Senator and high school teacher Bill Soules of Las Cruces said he sponsored the 2017 bill after conversations with students who felt left out of decisions about concussions in athletics. He said protocols for non-scholastic youth sports were not fully addressed at the time and applauded the idea of expanding youth education. "The idea is that students have an awareness as to what the symptoms are of concussions because sometimes they don't show up until one or two hours afterward, and the coach is long gone," he said. The newly proposed brain injury rules echo many guidelines already in place at statewide youth sports organizations affiliated with national governing bodies, such as New Mexico Youth Soccer that oversees a long list of clubs and leagues across the state. Gloria Faber, executive director of New Mexico Youth Soccer, said the new state rules may be help independent youth sports groups keep up with evolving research on brain injuries and ensure that athletes take adequate time off after a concussion. She said standards for non-scholastic sports are especially important because many coaches are parent volunteers and competition begins at a young age. New Mexico's proposed new rules include a standard sit-out period for symptoms of a concussion or brain injury of at least 10 days. Players would return only with a written medical release. In 2015, a New Mexico judge overruled state concussion protocols to allow a high school football player in Rio Rancho to play in a title game after his parents challenged the school's diagnosis.
Example Output: New Mexico seeks concussion safeguards for more youth sports.

Example Input: While the story looks at genetic tests for prescribing psychiatric drugs broadly, it also uses one test in particular as a focal point. The story notes that this test, called GeneSight, cost one patient $3,800. The story also notes that GeneSight is covered by Medicare. Those are great points to make in a story like this one. However, since the story also notes that there are a lot of other, similar tests on the market, it would have been good to tell readers a little bit more about cost. Is $3,800 about average for testing costs? Is there a range that these tests fall into? Do other insurers pay for GeneSight? The story would have been stronger if it had touched on these issues. Wewould have liked to see more detail about the company-funded studies mentioned, especially sample size and the odds ratios or degree of benefit. It is easy and tempting to discredit studies because they are company-funded, but this does not necessarily mean they are wrong simply that we should proceed with caution in interpreting them. And it's true that in many cases, the company is the only group interested in investing the time/money to do the necessary research. With that being said, the story does note that "Finding a test to more precisely target treatment could help troubled people find help more quickly, cut down on side effects, and save money." And, when discussing GeneSight in particular, the story points to "company-funded studies showing that when [patients with depression] took the medications recommended by the test, they had fewer symptoms after eight weeks compared with patients who did not use the test." We'll award a Satisfactory and leave the suggestions for next time. This area could have been stronger. The story begins with an anecdote about a patient who was prescribed a drug based in part on the results of a genetic test. That patient became suicidal within three weeks and checked himself into a mental hospital. That sort of story tells readers very little about risks associated with these genetic tests, precisely because it is anecdotal and there was very little else in the story about potential harms. For example, the story quotes one researcher as saying that claims about such genetic tests are "not harmless and may be quite dangerous." But the story doesn't tell us what that means. Why aren't these claims harmless? Why may they be dangerous? We suspect that thebiggest harm here is in the high cost of the test. But what if the test is wrong? It might also cause delays in finding the "right" drug for patients especially if the genetic test takes time to run and if doctors weigh the test results over clinical judgment or other factors, leading to poorer decisions. The focus of the story is on quality of evidence. It emphasizes the lack of independently-funded studies that have evaluated the efficacy of these genetic tests. Based on a review by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, "virtually all the evidence that these psychiatric tests work is based on limited studies funded by the companies themselves or researchers they fund, including all five studies used to promote GeneSight on the company's website." It would have been good to put some numbers there "virtually all the evidence" is a somewhat vague description but we think it does address the Quality of Evidence question in a meaningful way. Worth noting: an annotated version of this story that appeared on the New England Center for Investigative Reporting's site includes links to supporting information that is of interest. It would have been good if the version of the story that appeared in the Globe had let readers know that the annotated version (and supporting documents) were available. No disease mongering here. A very strong point for the story. It quotes multiple industry and expert sources, with industry sources clearly identified. The story looks at the field of genetic testing to identify psychiatric drugs most likely to be effective to treat specific mental conditions in a given patient. The alternative to using such testing is for psychiatrists to prescribe drugs based on their diagnosis, which is often determined by symptoms. The story doesn't state this explicitly, and that would have been useful. But the story does note that psychiatry does have "a lack of definitive tests for conditions and treatments alike," and that doctors often take a "trial-and-error approach to medications." We think the story did enough here to earn a Satisfactory rating. The story makes clear that many of these tests are currently available. The story notes that "Genetic tests to identify the most effective psychiatric drugs are the hot new technology in the race to create personalized treatments based on people's DNA" and that "[m]ore than 600,000 of these tests have likely been administered in the last three years." While it may have been nice to mention that genetic testing is done in some other fields (eg. to determine breast cancer risk) to provide context, the story does enough to earn a Satisfactory rating. This work doesn't appear to be based on a news release at all and even if it were, it clearly goes far beyond anything a news release might include.
Example Output:
Genetic tests for psychiatric drugs spur hope, doubts