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: There is no mention of the cost for the tested drug, cimaglermin, in this story. The costs for regularly prescribed drugs for the medical condition that's the focus of the study weakened left ventricular function are well known and although cimaglermin is an experimental drug, it should be possible to predict whether the new drug would be comparatively priced, cheaper or more expensive. Readers would benefit from that knowledge. While this story discusses that the drug seemed to benefit patients and was effective, it doesn't say how that was measured, and by how much the measurement improved due to the drug. (By digging into the research paper, via figure 3, we found that the benefits were measured by tracking absolute increases inejection fraction, which is the amount of blood pumped out the ventricles. It increased 8% in the group receiving a medium or high dose of the medicine.) One issue that might be confusing for readers: The story notes that a "phase 1 trial like this one is designed to see if a new drug is safe, not to test its effectiveness." If that's the case, then why is the framing of the story about how effective it was? The story clearly points out that side effects included nausea and headaches, and that one participant did experience abnormal liver function after receiving the highest dose, a side effect that eventually cleared up. This is a strong point of the story: It clearly establishes that this was a small phase one randomized controlled trial, and the story explains what that means for the drug's development. A phase 1 trial like this one is designed to see if a new drug is safe, not to test its effectiveness. Before cimaglermin could be used to treat patients, it must prove its worth in a series of progressively larger and challenging trials and then be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The process can take several years. Based on these preliminary findings, larger trials are being planned, Lenihan said. But, as noted in quantify benefits criterion above, readers might be confused by why so much of the story focused on the drug's effectiveness, if this preliminary study wasn't designed to test that. The story doesn't commit disease mongering. The story does get credit for quoting a researcher not affiliated with this project, but it neglects to mention some obvious potential conflicts of interest among the members of the research team. According to the research paper, eight of the 13 researchers have some linkage to pharmaceutical firms and seven of them have a connection to the sponsor of the study, Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., either as consultants, employees, or stockholders, and two of them have had research funded by the company. The story does mention alternatives for dealing with weakened left ventricular function, primarily through this paragraph: "People with heart failure often take a combination of drugs, Lenihan said. These include medications to lower blood pressure and diuretics to help remove excess fluid that builds up as a result of the heart's labored pumping ability. In addition, some people have implanted defibrillators or pacemakers." We'll rate this category satisfactory, given that the story admits that it is reporting on a phase one trial, and includes the following information: "Before cimaglermin could be used to treat patients, it must prove its worth in a series of progressively larger and challenging trials and then be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The process can take several years." The drug is clearly described in terms of its experimental nature at this point. This story doesn't appear to have relied on a news release.
Output:
Heart Failure Drug Shows Promise in First Human Trial