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."
Example solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example explanation: 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.

Problem: This release notes several times that sestamibi SPECT/CT is inexpensive and widely available. It would have been good to include some cost estimates, particularly since reducing unneeded surgeries by the "thousands" presumably would be a huge cost savings. The release states that "The addition of sestamibi SPECT/CT increased the reviewers' diagnostic certainty in 14 of the 48 patients, or in nearly 30 percent of all cases," and that "Conventional imaging combined with sestamibi SPECT/CT had a value of 0.85, while conventional imaging alone had a value of 0.60." The release offers that "a value of 0.50 indicates that a diagnostic test is no better than chance," to give readers a benchmark for comparison. The release does address harms in terms of reduced harms from adding the imagining technology to standard diagnostic tests: "Even for patients whose tumors were not reclassified, the addition of sestamibi SPECT/CT increased physicians' ability to more confidently classify malignant tumors, which reduces the risk of misdiagnosis and unnecessary surgery for all patients, the researchers say." However, the potential harms from the test itself are not mentioned. Like CT, the test involves the use of ionizing radiation known to increase the risk of cancer. Though often minor, the contrast imaging agents (also called tracers or "dye") injected prior to the test can cause allergic reactions, headaches, chest pain, dizziness, and other reactions. The release clearly states that the radiologists evaluating the imagery were unaware of the results of the surgery, that is, whether the tumors were cancerous or benign. It also states that "similarly 'blinded' pathologists analyzed the tumors without knowing the radiologists' imaging results." This blinding of the researchers lends credibility to the findings even though the study itself involved a small number of participants. No evidence of disease mongering here. The release provides a good discussion of why more accurate imaging is needed for kidney tumor diagnosis. The release didn't mention a funder. The release describes the results of comparing the diagnostic accuracy of regular CT or MRI scans alone or with the addition of sestamibi SPECT/CTimaging. The release also states that the alternative to diagnostic certainty is surgery, even when it is unknown whether the tumor is malignant or non-cancerous. The release notes in several places, including in the first sentence, that the technique is "widely available." We know that to be true. The release states that radiologists at Johns Hopkins designed the approach of combining sestamibi SPECT/CT with CT or MRI to improve diagnostic accuracy in kidney tumors. Sestamibi SPECT/CT itself is not new. It is the standard imaging choice for assessing problems with the parathyroid glands, which are adjacent to the thyroid gland. The release does not rely on unjustifiable language.
Solution: Noninvasive Imaging Test Shown Accurate in Ruling Out Kidney Cancers