Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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: "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."
Output: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
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.

New input case for you: Good job on this, stating "The cost of the surgery and Hipec, including hospitalization, ranges from $20,000 to more than $100,000, doctors said. While Medicare and insurers generally pay for the operation, the heated treatment may not be covered. But doctors added it may be if it is described merely as chemotherapy." The story explained: "One randomized trial done more than a decade ago involving 105 patients in the Netherlands did show a striking benefit. The median survival of those getting surgery and Hipec, plus intravenous chemotherapy, was 22.3 months, almost double the 12.6 months for those getting only the intravenous chemotherapy" That being said, the story also included the proviso that newer drugs are now available that have been shown to increase survival. The story explains that one study showed that "8 percent who got the surgery and Hipec died from the treatment itself." And it stated: Includes one expert statement: ""We're practicing this technique that has almost no basis in science." No disease mongering. Many different voices with different perspectives were heard in the story. Various comparisons were made on both sides of the debate. A proponent of the new method said: ""there are no long-term survivors with systemic chemotherapy zero." But the story also said:"critics say that new drugs have come to market that allow patients with metastatic colorectal cancer to live two years with intravenous chemotherapy alone" The story states that "an increasing number of the nation's leading medical centers has been offering the costly and controversial therapy to patients with the more common colorectal or ovarian cancers" and names some of them. The growing use of the approach was clear in the story. And the fact that one randomized trial was done fully a decade ago. The story benefited from independent reporting.
Output:
Hot Chemotherapy Bath: Patients See Hope, Critics Hold Doubts