You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

"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
Why? 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: The drug fully eradicated medulloblastoma tumors in mice in 2004. But further testing showed it caused permanent bone damage in immature mice, Tom Curran of The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and colleagues found. Writing in the journal Cancer Cell, they said the drug, known by its experimental name HhAntag, will need to be developed with caution. And, they said, similar drugs will need careful testing. HhAntag, made by California-based Genentech, affects a gene called Hedgehog, involved in both normal development and in cancer. It is a so-called signal transduction inhibitor, designed to interrupt Hedgehog's cancer-causing effects. Several such drugs are currently in pediatric clinical trials. "While it is not clear that the bone defects we observed in mice would also occur in children, and while signal transduction inhibitors may still represent a highly promising approach to treating pediatric cancer, it may be important to perform preclinical testing in young animals before moving ahead to clinical trials," Curran said in a statement. Medulloblastomas account for about one in five childhood brain tumors. "Current therapy, involving a combination of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, is relatively successful with a five year survival rate of 78 percent," Curran's team wrote. "However, the prognosis is much worse for patients younger than 3 and in older patients with metastatic disease." The Hedgehog-inhibiting drugs had been considered a promising new approach for these young patients. But even brief use of the drug in 10- to 14-day-old mice caused permanent damage, Curran found. "We already knew that the same biological pathway involved in the growth of tumors was also involved in bone development but we did not expect temporary inhibition to cause an irreversible change in bone growth," Curran said. It may be possible to find a way to protect the growing bones of children and still use the drug, Curran said. "Thus, although the impact of a brief suppression of Hedgehog pathway on bone development in mice is quite striking, this should not preclude attempts to develop a highly promising anti-cancer treatment for pediatric medulloblastoma," his team concluded.
Solution:
Promising Cancer Drug May Endanger Child's Bones.