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: The story mentioned that it was expected that the drug reported on would cost $8/day as compared with <$1/day for warfarin. One aspect of costs that were not considered in this story is the difference in monitoring, which would be less with patients using Eliquis. The competing HealthDay story did a better job on this latter point. The story provided only relative risk reduction figures "prevented 21 percent more strokes31 percent fewer incidents of major bleedingreduced total deaths by 11 percent" but neglected to present the absolute decrease in adverse events. 21% of what? 31% of what? 11% of what? The story mentioned some of the disadvantages associated with this use of the medication reported on. It did not specifically detail whether there were any harms associated with this medication or how well people in the study were able to stick with the dosing schedule. On this issue, this story was not as complete as its HealthDay competition, which reported: "The new trial comes on the heels of another study on apixaban that was stopped early due to safety concerns. In that trial, published in July in the New England Journal of Medicine, apixaban's use was associated with raised odds for bleeding without providing patients with any reduction in heart attack risk.However, "in that case, apixaban was given to patients with coronary artery disease who were also taking two other blood thinners," Ansell noted. "The three of them together showed that the risk of bleeding was just too high and there was no real benefit in that population. But, that's an entirely different problem, compared with atrial fibrillation," he said." The story included a lot of information about the study it reported on where the results were presented and published, its design, the number of clinical sites, countries involved, the number of people studied and the length of time they were studied.. No overt disease mongering. The story mentioned that the study reported on had been funded by the drug maker. It included comments from a clinician who had no ties to the study reported on. The story compared the study drug with the long time treatment, warfarin, as well as mentioning a newly approved medication and another medication in the approval process. The story opened by indicating that Eliquis (apixabane) was experimental and closed by indicating the expectation of submission to the FDA for approval. The story was clear that this was a new medication, though there are two other medications (warfarin and Pradax) that are currently available. Did not appear to rely solely on a news release.
Solution:
Trial Shows Blockbuster Potential for Blood Clot Pill