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.

Example Input: The story doesn't address costs for any of the treatment options discussed. Is MBSR comparable to CBT? Does insurance cover either treatment option? The story tells readers what percentage of study participants who got MBSR treatment reported improvement in pain, as well as what percentage of MBSR participants "reported improvement in the activities they could do." It also offered the same numbers for participants who received CBT and for the control group, which received typical medical care for this condition. These detailsdeservea Satisfactory rating. But: The story notes: "The study did caution that 30 of the 103, or about one-third, of the participants in the meditation group reported an 'adverse event,' most often an increase in pain due to yoga." It's good to see that included. Since the story is effectively comparing MBSR to CBT and conventional treatment, it would also have been worth noting "adverse events" for those groups in the study. According to the study, 10 percent of the CBT group also experienced "adverse events," and no adverse events were mentioned for the control group. Defining "adverse events" would also have been good, since it's not clear whether they mean momentary pain or a debilitating flare-up of long-term pain. According to the study, the painfor both MBSR and CBT groupswas "mostly temporary" and no "serious" adverse events were reported. Those things are worth mentioning. (It's also worth finding out what "mostly" and "serious" mean.) The story describes the study in detail, explicitly stating the study size and the absolute percentages in each arm that had benefit. It also acknowledged the study was randomized. We'll count this as sufficient for Satisfactory, keeping in mind the following: As explained in the summary above, the story doesn't make clear MBSR and CBT were used in addition to conventional medical treatment, rather than instead of medical treatment. The story didn't mention that the study excluded participants with what the study authors term "a specific diagnosis (eg, spinal stenosis)." In other words, the study did not address treatments for back pain caused by issues like a herniated disc or rheumatoid arthritis. Many readers have these conditions, and should be informed thatthese study results may not be applicable to their situation. Lastly, we would have welcomed a discussion of the high rates of success within thecontrol group. Forty-four percent in that group experienced a gain in functionality, for example. That seems pretty good! What do the researchers have to say about that? No disease mongering here. However, we did want to point out that the story "fear mongers" in a sense, by stating back pain is "one reason why more and more people are addicted to painkillers." The story insinuates that these other treatment methodsespecially meditationcould help with that. And maybe they could. But the study itself says "No overall differences in treatment effects were observed forself-reported use of medications for back pain." So why the mentionof painkiller addiction? Conflicts of interest don't appear to be an issue here, and the story includesstatements froman accompanying editorial in JAMA, which was written by experts unaffiliated with the research. This squeaks by as Satisfactory, though it should be noted that most of this material was available via news releases (see below). The story is effectively all about comparing alternatives, thoughagainit should have made clear that MBSR and CBT were used in conjunction with conventional medical treatment, and it left out discussion of other well-known non-medication treatment methods, such as exercise. It's not clear from the story whether MBSR is widely available, is available in mainly metropolitan areas, or is a relatively new field that is still uncommon. The story does quote from a separate editorial in JAMA that says health care systems "should provide access to affordable mind-body therapies,"implying that it's not widely available. Is this the case, or can it be easily accessed? Given the constraints of a brief news story, the piece does a nice job of articulating the differences between MBSR and CBT. It wouldhave been even more helpful for the story to mention previous studies on the impact of MBSR and CBT on low back pain, to help us understand how novel this new study is. There is little in the story that is not found in the two news releases issued on this study. (Those releases can be found here and here.)
Example Output: Mindful meditation may be the answer to relieving chronic back pain, study suggests

Example Input: The story describes the cost of the drug-coated stents compared to the older version, the bare metal stents. The story does report the risk of clotting with the drug-coated stents, however the comparison of coated and bare metal stents is the key piece of information that is missing in this story. This information should also be presented inabsolute rather than relative terms. The story adequately describes therisk of clotting with drug-coated stents and of bleeding with Plavix. The story does a good job of describing the strength of the available evidence, particularly the limitationsof using hospital registries as a source of data. By accurately describing the prevalence of restenosis, or narrowing of the artery after stenting, the story avoids disease mongering. The story quotes multiple experts who have differing perspectives on how the new information changes clinical practice. The story does mention alternatives such as bare metal stents, bypass surgery and medications. The story clearly states that drug-coated stents are common. The story clearly states that the drug-coated stents are new but have been widely used since they were introduced. Because the story quotes multiple independent sources the reader can assume that the story does not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Example Output: FDA Probes Safety of Popular Heart Stent

Example Input: The story takes the rare step of talking about costs from three different angles. The cost to the physician. The cost to the patient. And the cost to insursers. "Doctors will pay a one-time fee of $7,500 to lease and receive training on the device. Patients will pay $150 out of pocket for a MelaFind scan, which analysts say may limit use to more affluent patients who are willing to pay extra for the latest medical care. Mela Sciences does not plan to ask insurers to cover the device until several years from now, after it is more widely used. The story shows that the device is fairly effective at finding cancerous lesions. "In a company-sponsored study published last year involving around 1,300 patients, some with multiple growths, doctors reported that MelaFind correctly suggested biopsies on 125 of 127 melanomas that doctors had removed." It's a bit confusing, but the story explains that the device also makes the wrong call too often, giving too many false positives. "However, the device did not raise an alarm about non-melanoma growths only about 10 percent of the time; that was still better than doctors in the study who correctly ruled out melanoma in less than 4 percent of such cases, on average." Just presenting the false positive and false negative rates would have been more helpful to readers. We would have liked to have seen a little more about the latest study of the device, but there was enough information in the story to let readers know that this is the case where the evidence is still not quite settled. It says, for example, "MelaFind underwent a contentious, years-long review by the Food and Drug Administration, which initially rejected the device and concluded it could 'potentially cause more harm than good. '" And later it says that "an FDA-required follow-up study would help determine how much of a benefit MelaFind represents for patients." The story both gives the broader context about melanoma while taking care to pinpoint the appropriate patient population. It says in the second paragraph, "The device is approved only for dermatologists and only for use on growths that don't have obvious signs of cancer but still have one or two worrisome traits." It also says, "Nearly all patients diagnosed with early-stage melanoma can be treated and cured, but 85 percent of patients with late-stage melanoma die from it within five years." The story could have more clearly stated that while many are diagnosed with melanoma only a small number actually will die from it. The late stage cases are a small fraction of the total. The story does not use a truly independent source because everyone appears to have some sort of conflict, but this is also one of the stories strengths. Rarely have we seen conflicts presented with this kind of detail. For example, the story says describes Dr. Leonard Goldberg as "a dermatologist at the Texas Medical Center and vice president of the Skin Cancer Foundation, a disease awareness group that accepts donations from makers of sunscreen." The story compares the device to clinicians throughout, and shows clearly that dermatologists are still the ones with the best authority in this area. The story says clearly that the devices are not currently available in most areas. "But don't expect to see a MelaFind machine at your next doctor's appointment. The company plans a limited rollout next year of just 200 dermatologists on the East coast, all of whom must undergo company training before they can begin using the device." The story calls the device a "first of its kind," but it also explains that it is only approved for use in a subset of patients and that much more work needs to be done. The story does not rely on a news release.
Example Output:
New device uses light to screen for melanoma