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: "As physicians grapple with the best ways to treat patients infected with the coronavirus, one treatment that has gained increasing attention is convalescent plasma therapy. This therapy involves transfusing blood plasma from recovered coronavirus patients into a sick patient. The plasma contains a specific antibody that helps the immune system fight the virus. The idea is to help give seriously ill patients an immune-system boost so they can better fight off the virus. COVID-19 convalescent plasma therapy is considered as an investigational product by the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Jamie N. Nadler, the medical director of quality and patient safety for Buffalo General Medical Center and Gates Vascular Institute in upstate New York, recently told the Buffalo News that there's some evidence that it could be an effective way to treat COVID-19. ""There have been small trials and small attempts around the world that seem to have had some degree of success,"" Nadler said. ""So it's worth trying as long as it's done correctly."" Nadler is right: We found two studies of convalescent plasma therapy that have shown at least initial promise with COVID-19 patients, although experts caution that more investigation is needed. (Nadler did not respond to an inquiry for this article.) Convalescent plasma therapy has a long history. It was developed by Paul Ehrlich and Emil von Behring for treatment of diphtheria, a finding that was recognized in 1901 with the first Nobel Prize for medicine, epidemiologist Dr. Ian Lipkin, a professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, told CNBC. More recently, it was used against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, an infection with similarities to COVID-19 that emerged in Asia in the early 2000s. In one study in Hong Kong during a SARS outbreak, a hospital treated 80 patients with convalescent plasma. Among the treated patients, the study showed a higher discharge rate prior to day 14 of the illness: 58.3% became well enough to be discharged, compared with 15.6% of those who did not receive the treatment. However, patients suffering from Ebola a different kind of virus in the filovirus family did not experience positive results from convalescent plasma treatment. A Chinese study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, described a study treating five critically ill COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma. All five patients, ranging from 36 to 65 years old, began the study while on ventilators. Following the transfusion, the authors reported, four of the five patients' body temperatures normalized within three days. Other key metrics, including viral loads, improved within 12 days. The hospital discharged three of the five patients. The remaining two were in stable condition 37 days after the transfusion. The authors concluded that this represented an ""improvement,"" but cautioned that the limited sample size and study design precluded ""a definitive statement about the potential effectiveness of this treatment."" Another Chinese study found similar results. It has not yet been peer reviewed but has been published online. In the study, 10 patients with severe cases received a dose of convalescent plasma. Within three days, the viral load became undetectable in seven patients, with no adverse effects. In addition, fever, cough, shortness of breath and chest pain disappeared or significantly improved in all 10 patients within one to three days of the transfusion. The authors concluded that the therapy was ""well tolerated and could potentially improve the clinical outcomes"" in severe COVID-19 cases. However, they added, questions on the optimal dose and timing need further investigation. ""Just as COVID-19 has taken us back to classic methods for outbreak containment like isolation, through a novel use we are rediscovering the lifesaving potential of a classic strategy like plasma therapy,"" Lipkin said. Experts say that convalescent plasma therapy is promising, but much more work is needed. ""There have not been any breakthroughs recently,"" said Jessica Donington, a professor of surgery at the University of Chicago and chief of the thoracic surgery section. But, she added, ""it all has been going on very quickly,"" with larger clinical trials in the works. Nadler said that ""there have been small trials and small attempts around the world"" to test convalescent plasma therapy for coronavirus patients, and they ""seem to have had some degree of success."" We found two Chinese studies that have found initial success, though more research is needed to confirm these results more broadly."
Solution:
"Small trials" to test convalescent plasma therapy for coronavirus patients "seem to have had some degree of success."