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: "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 output: 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.
Q: The story did not address costs. Because this ran in the U.S. edition of The Guardian, this is important and useful information for readers stateside, who often have substantial out-of-pocket drug costs. The research examined the side effect profiles oflithium, valproate, olanzapine, and quetiapine and provided hazard ratios for the most commonly recognized side effects. The Guardian story reflects those findings in a qualitative way with some quantitative details, such as: "Meanwhile, lithium patients were less likely to put on weight than patients on the other drugs. While 15%-20% of those on the three other drugs were more likely to gain more than 15% of their body weight, just 10% of those on lithium put on the same amount of extra pounds." The story does a reasonable job in outlining the side effects seen with the four drugs in question and provides them in context. The reader is told: "The researchers studied a nationally representative sample of 6,671 patients across the UK who were treated for bipolar disorder between 1995 and 2013. Of those, 2,148 had taken lithium, 1,670 had used valproate, 1,477 had been on olanzapine and 1,376 had taken quetiapine. They experienced side-effects including chronic kidney disease, thyroid disease, weight gain and high blood pressure." These are important details, but we also wanted to see some nod to the caveats of the study, which were noted by the researchers in their paper in the "strengths and limitations" section. There is no evidence of disease mongering. Given the seriousness of the disorder and its prevalence, we would have liked to have seen read more on how many people it affects. Although the majority of the quotes come from a senior author of the research, the comments ofStephen Buckley, head of information at the charity Mind were welcomed and provided an important second voice. A few words from other clinicians would have been a bonus. The research examined the side effect profiles of the most commonly used drugs to treat bipolar disorder, it also discusses "talk therapy" (but not until the end of the story). The story makes it clear that the four drugs studied are indeed available. The story begins with: The new study is the first to compare the side-effects of the four main mood-stabilising drugs prescribed by the NHS." Based on our review of the medical literature, we agree. The story does not appear to rely on a newsrelease.
A:
Lithium should be more widely used for bipolar disorder, researchers say