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.
One example is below.
Q: "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."
A: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Rationale: 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: Although the release doesn't give actual costs of warfarin versus some of the newer drugs, or factor in the cost of the usual monthly blood testing required of those taking the drug, it does note the cost of the gene testing used for the study, and that the $200 price tag is now less than a month's prescription of one of the newer anti-coagulants on the market. The release gives results in both actual numbers of patients and the percentage of reduction of adverse events in those given the genetic test and a comparison group. Although it does so in general terms, the release covers the essentials: the risk of using blood thinners like warfarin and the risks of not using them. The release offers a good description of the design of the study. It was randomized and enrolled more than 1,600 older patients at high risk of blood clots following surgeries. The release explains that one group received warfarin dosing based on standard factors (age, height and weight) and the second group was dosed using these clinical factors plus their genetic variants. The release also offers a detailed breakdown on how many fewer side effects occurred among patients had genetic testing completed compared to those who didn't. No mongering here. Nicely done and quite complete. Although the release briefly mentions the availability of a "newer anticoagulant," it should have included a sentence or two about these newer injectable drugs and their overall risks and benefits in comparison to warfarin. It would also have been helpful to tell readers whether the genetic testing that appears to play a role in safer warfarin dosing would have clinical relevance for informing the use of the new blood thinners as well. The fact is that genetic testing is irrelevant for the newer anti-coagulants because they operate in a completely different manner. But all the blood thinners old and new carry the same risk of bleeding. The problem with warfarin is the variability in blood levels which requires frequent monitoring, hence the genetic tests to guide dosing. The careful reader will get it: testing for these genetic variants is still an experimental practice for the most part, and further testing of how the mutations affect warfarin is needed. But the release could have been more explicit in saying that no one is yet recommending genetic testing for millions of warfarin users. While the genetic tests are "available" in the sense that anyone can order them for the most part, they are not routinely used clinically and probably wouldn't be covered by insurance so in that sense they are not widely available to most people. The release describes how the genetic test used in the new study differs from previous similar studies. Overall the language is careful and contextual. The headline should have been toned back a bit to note that this is early research and more study is needed before concluding that "Genetic testing helps set safe dose of common blood thinner," as the headline now states.
A:
Genetic testing helps set safe dose of common blood thinner