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.

Input: Consider Input: While the story does describe the cost of stenting, it does not provide the cost of the medication for comparison. The story does give the rate of heart attack or death as 19% within 7 years for both the stent and the medication group. Although the study mentions the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents, this is not adequate information on harms. Furthermore, the study does not mention any possible harms of medication. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. Furthermore, the story clearly states that this study was done on patients at low risk, that is, those with stable heart disease. The story only quotes one cardiologist not associated with the study and gives no rationale for why he was chosen. (Is it because he's in New York and readily available?) The story could have quoted other clinicians or experts who could have provided some valuable perspective on the impact of this new development on the management of heart disease. The story does mention medication as the alternative to stenting. The story clearly states that stenting is very common in the U.S. The story clearly states that stenting is not a new idea. Because the story quotes the lead author of the study and one physician who is not related to the study, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.

Output: Heart study: Most angioplasties not needed

Input: Consider Input: The story provided no cost estimates for vitamin and mineral supplements. The magnitude of wasted expenditures that could be saved is relevant. The story indicated that there was no cancer risk reduction associated with the vitamin supplements studied. A quote in the story from the author of one of the studies indicated that too little or too much of particular vitamins was associated with increased cancer risk. In addition, the table in the story provided information about vitamins being associated with an increased risk of diabetes and a higher, though not significant increase in the incidence in the case of one cancer. The story did not convey any sense of the quality of the studies on which it was reporting. Were they retrospective observational studies (generally weak designs) or prospective randomized trials (the best type of study). A more insightful explanation about why the current group of studies which find no protective effect are more compelling that the previous studies that found a protective effect of vitamins would have also been useful.. This story did not engage in disease mongering. The story included quotes from one of the study authors, as well as a spokesperson from the American Cancer Society and an expert without connection to the study but who wrote an editorial accompanying the study. The story mentions specific lifestyle interventions which have been shown to be associated with reduction in cancer risk. It inaccurately mentioned screening for colon, cervical, and breast cancer as means of reducing their risk. It should have stated that these screening tests are associated with reduced risk of dying of these cancers, not as means of reducing the chance of developing them. It's clear that vitamins and mineral supplements are in widespread use. The story correctly indicated that the results of the current study are consistent with the results from several recent studies which demonstrated that vitamin supplementation failed to decrease the chance of developing cancer. The sidebar table, which summarized results and included the journal name and month of publication, provided a resource for interested readers to find more information. Does not appear to rely on a press release.

Output: Vitamins get 'F' in cancer prevention

Input: Consider Input: Six patients were still responding at 7.5 months of follow-up, according to research presented in San Diego at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH). The highest trial dose was discontinued due to toxicity. Nearly a third of trial patients developed serious infections and other side effects included nerve damage and liver failure. Amgen said AMG420, which targets a protein linked to multiple myeloma known as BCMA, has been given fast track status by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Based on these data, we plan to open an expanded trial," David Reese, Amgen's head of research and development, said in an interview. "We want to begin exploring quickly enrollment in earlier lines of therapy." Amgen's pipeline of bispecific antibodies, which are designed to attach to a cancer cell and an immune cell, bringing them together so the body's immune system can kill the cancer, are a cornerstone of the biotech company's oncology research. Other companies are exploring different ways to attack the same BCMA target, including bluebird bio Inc, Celgene Corp and Johnson & Johnson. Earlier at the ASH meeting, bluebird and Celgene presented early trial data showing that experimental cell therapy bb21217 induced responses in 10 out of 12 heavily pre-treated myeloma patients. Bb21217 is a next-generation version of bb2121, the companies' more advanced, but still experimental therapy in a class called CAR-T that requires harvesting a patient's own disease-fighting T-cells, modifying them in a laboratory so they target specific proteins on cancer cells and infusing them back into the patient. The manufacturing process for bb21217 is designed to improve the persistence of the altered cells. J&J, which licensed BCMA-directed CAR-T LCAR-B38M from a unit of China-based GenScript Biotech Corp, on Monday presented updated results from a Chinese study of the cell therapy in 57 previously treated myeloma patients. It showed that 88 percent of patients responded to the treatment, and 74 percent achieved remission. J&J is currently enrolling patients in an international study aimed at validating those findings. Amgen has suggested the "off the shelf" nature of its antibody platform could be an advantage from both a clinical and commercial standpoint, but oncologists say more data is needed. Trial patients are hospitalized for their first cycle of AMG420, after which they receive the drug by continuous 24-hour infusion for four weeks, followed by two weeks off therapy, for up to 10 cycles. Amgen has another BCMA-targeting antibody that lasts longer in the body, requiring less frequent infusions, but that research is at an earlier stage. In the current study, 42 patients with multiple myeloma that worsened after at least two prior treatments were given AMG420 at varying doses. A total of 13 patients responded to the treatment, including seven who achieved remission. Of the 20 patients with serious adverse events, 17 required hospitalization and four had prolonged hospitalization.
Output: Amgen antibody shows promise in myeloma trial, gets FDA fast track.