Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. 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."
Answer: 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.
Part 3. Exercise
The scientists, who treated the monkeys with a neuroprosthetic interface that acted as a wireless bridge between the brain and spine, say they have started small feasibility studies in humans to trial some components. "The link between the decoding of the brain and the stimulation of the spinal cord to make this communication exist is completely new," said Jocelyne Bloch, a neurosurgeon at the Lausanne University Hospital who surgically placed the brain and spinal cord implants in the monkey experiments. "For the first time, I can imagine a completely paralyzed patient able to move their legs through this brain-spine interface." Gregoire Courtine, a neuroscientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) which led the work, cautioned that there are major challenges ahead and "it may take several years before this intervention can become a therapy for humans." Publishing their results in the journal Nature on Wednesday, the team said the interface works by decoding brain activity linked to walking movements and relaying that to the spinal cord below the injury through electrodes that stimulate neural pathways and activate leg muscles. In bypassing the injury and restoring communication between the brain and the relevant part of the spinal cord, the scientists successful treated two rhesus monkeyseach with one leg paralyzed by a partial spinal cord lesion. One of the monkeys regained some use of its paralyzed legwithin the first weekafterinjury, without training, both on a treadmill and ontheground, while the other took around two weeks to recover to the same point. "We developed an implantable, wireless system that operates in real-time and enabled a primate to behave freely, without the constraint of tethered electronics," said Courtine. "We understood how to extract brain signals that encode flexion and extension movements of the leg with a mathematical algorithm. We then linked the decoded signals to the stimulation of specific hotspots in the spinal cord that induced the walking movement." The brain and spinal cord can adapt and recover from small injuries, but until now that ability has been far too limited to overcome severe damage. Other attempts to repair spinal cords have focused on stem cell therapy and on combinations of electrical and chemical stimulation of the cord. Independent experts not directly involved in this work said it was an important step towards a potential future where paralyzed people may be able to walk again. Simone Di Giovanni, a specialist in restorative neuroscience at Imperial College London, said EPFL's results were "solid, very promising and exciting" but would need to be tested further in more animals and in larger numbers. "In principle this is reproducible in human patients," he said. "The issue will be how much this approach will contribute to functional recovery that impacts on the quality of life. This is still very uncertain."
Answer:
Paralyzed monkeys walk again with wireless 'brain-spine interface'.