Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: "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."
Solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
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: Although the physician-expert interviewed for the article works at an academic medical centerwhere there is conceivably a vested interest in root-cause and advanced immunotherapies instead of OTC symptomatic carethe article deserves gold stars for noting the costs of the newer sublingual tablet and drop treatments, and some important information about what most insurers will and won't cover. Ideally, the article would have also mentioned the costs of over-the-counter options to provide a comparison point. Even with a Q&A format, articles about allergies can be more useful by making sure to include relative and absolute rates of benefit from various treatments. This article leaves the readers with the idea that all or most people get relief from one or more of the triad of treatment approaches: avoidance of allergy triggers, OTC or prescription drugs like antihistamines and nasal steroids, and immunotherapies like allergy shots. But drawbacksand side effects should be made clear, so that the true benefit is more accurate. For example, while the article does note that successful immunotherapy often takes years, it doesn't report: The article duly notes the most common side effect of the newer sublingual drops treatment and the rare risk of serious side effects from allergy shots. The article could have been strengthened by including information on the side effects of OTC and prescription drug treatments. The article relies on the credentialed expertise of an allergy specialist, and the "Ask the Expert" format means it's mostly a "review" of best practices and what's available therapeutically. The interview subject makes allusions to trial data ("significant decrease" of symptoms, follow-up period) without giving information on the quality of the studies. This story didn't disease monger;allergies are certainly a common affliction. But, while this isn't enough to lose the Satisfactory rating, there was what we call "treatment mongering" because of the emphasis on immunotherapy for treatment. Most people won'tneed this level of treatment,and will do well with standard OTC and prescription medications. The format clearly excludes independent sources commenting on what the expert is saying. The interviewee himself might have quoted another source or two and strengthened his information, but overall, N/A seems reasonable. The article does a pretty good job of explaining alternatives to the relatively new immunotherapies, as well as some treatment cost comparisons. As stated earlier, the discussion was weighted toward immunotherapy and not OTC and prescription medications. The report makes clear what's FDA approved and what's not; and where to get the latest immunotherapies, and where people cannot get them. Good job on this. It seems reasonably clear that the timing is related to the fact that this is prime allergy season for readers. Although the intro makes a grab for a news hook, it's a pretty weak one, given that the "newest" immunotherapies have been available for at least a couple of years. But again, we don't think the article was intended to break any news or present anything as especially novel. The feature was not based on a release as far as we can tell from the university's news release site.
Solution:
More than shots, there's new help for allergy sufferers