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: The story does a good job of describing the costs of angiopasty compared to a stress test. The story could have discussed out of pocket costs for patients. The story could have quantified the benefit of stress testing in its ability to avoid angiography and angioplasty associated with it. The story mentions missing cases of heart disease and difficulties of performing the test in older patients as potentional harms of stress testing, but there are other harms that the story should have mentioned. The story adequately describes the design of the current study and points out some important caveats inherent in a database-based study. The story does not exagerrate the seriousness or prevalence of stable heart disease. The story quotes multiple sources. The story mentions angiography as the alternative to stress testing. The story could have done more to describe the pros and cons of angiography compared to stress testing. Clearly stress tests are available. Clearly stress testing is not a new idea. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.

Output: More stress tests needed before angioplasties, study says

Input: Consider Input: Publishing a study that found risk score tools are only around 46 percent accurate on how likely psychopathic convicts are to kill, rape or assault again, they said probation officers and judges should set little or no store by such tests. They warned that clinicians carrying out such classifications must be aware of their severe limitations, and make sure prisoners undergo comprehensive psychiatric diagnosis before any risks assessment is made. "If you apply these (tests) to somebody who is a psychopath, they're utterly useless, you might as well toss a coin," said Jeremy Coid, director of the forensic psychiatry research unit at Queen Mary University of London who led the study. "They will not predict accurately at all," he told reporters at a briefing in London about his findings. Coid and other forensic psychiatrists say the findings - which also showed the tools perform only moderately well in prisoners with disorders like schizophrenia, depression, drug and alcohol dependence - could have major implications for risk assessment in criminal justice systems. "There are increasing expectations of public protection from violent behavior, and psychiatrists can be seriously criticized if they make wrong decisions," he said. Seena Fazel, a consultant forensic psychiatrist at Britain's University of Oxford, said the reliability of the tests' predictive ability was so low that it might be best not to use them at all - and warned that at the very least, their results should only be noted by parole boards, rather than acted upon. "If you're going to use these instruments, be aware of their strengths and limitations," he told reporters. The estimated prevalence of adult psychopathy in the general population is around 1 percent, but that rises to between 15 percent and 25 percent among men in prison. Coid, whose study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, analyzed data from 1,396 male prisoners in England and Wales who were interviewed between six and 12 months before their release. All the men were serving sentences of two or more years for a sexual or violent offences. The prisoners were assessed for personality disorders, symptoms of schizophrenia, depression and drug and alcohol dependence, as well as being measured for psychopathy on a reputable scale known as Hare Psychopathy Check List. After their release, data on their re-offending rates was added to the study, and showed that among three different re-offending risk assessment tools used before their release, the accuracy among psychopaths was below 50 percent. While the tools were more accurate in predictions for prisoners with no mental health disorders - at around 75 percent accuracy - they were only around 60 percent right when it came to prisoners diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression. For prisoners with anti-social personality disorders the predictive value of the tests ranged from poor to little more than chance, with an average 53.2 percent predictive accuracy. And for the 70 prisoners rated as psychopathic, none of the tests was statistically better than chance. Coid said the results suggest it is time to question the expectations put on psychiatrists and psychologists asked to forecast future behavior of offenders, and to consider what can happen to their reputations if predictions are wrong. "The easy solution is to be highly restrictive on who is released, and be risk averse. However, even for serious offenders, most will be released at some stage and someone has to carry out a risk assessment," he said. "We need to prioritize the development of new assessment tools for these hard-to-predict groups."

Output: Predicting violence in psychopaths is 'no more than chance'.

Input: Consider Input: Becerra was discussing the findings of a 147-page report prepared by his office that also found that detainees face long periods of confinement without breaks and language barriers in the 10 detention facilities state authorities inspected in 2017. Becerra said the annual report released Tuesday is the first of 10 that the state Legislature requires of the California Department of Justice, which is tasked with inspecting all federal immigration detention facilities in the state. That law was one of three immigration-related "sanctuary state" bills passed in 2017 that the Trump administration unsuccessfully challenged in court. Inspectors spent one day on scheduled visits at 10 facilities in operation in 2017. ICE contracted with four for-profit prison companies and six county sheriffs to house and care for the inmates. Since then and amid growing protests, sheriffs in Sacramento and Contra Costa counties terminated their contracts with ICE to house federal immigration inmates in the local jails. A third facility near Bakersfield is also facing closure after the city of McFarland told ICE it would not renew its contract when it expires in March. Becerra said many of the problems are caused by inadequate federal oversight. He said a common "challenge" inspectors found at most facilities included confining inmates to their cells for up to 22 hours a day. He noted that most of the detainees are not accused of crimes and are awaiting court decisions on their immigration status. ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley said the private prison companies and county jails that house detainees "must meet rigorous performance standards." "The safety, rights and health of detainees in ICE's care are of paramount concern and all ICE detention facilities are subject to stringent, regular inspections," Haley said. The attorney general's report estimated that 74,000 immigrant detainees have been held in California detention centers over a three-year period ending in 2017 with an average stay of 50 days per inmate. Becerra said the state inspections of federal immigration facilities in California were necessary "because everyone in this country has constitutional rights and everyone at the end of the day child and adult deserve to be treated in a human way." In a separate report , California's state auditor Elaine Howle said cities and counties failed to properly monitor the facilities in their locales. Howle's report also called on ICE to be more transparent in its detention operations. "The state lacks complete information about how much it costs and what conditions the detainees face," Howle's report concluded. "Also unclear are how many detainees are being held throughout California, where they are being held, and for how long."
Output: California officials: Immigration facilities lack oversight.