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 Yakima Health District said Thursday that the cases involve people experiencing homelessness or those who use illicit drugs. The health district announced the outbreak Nov. 7, when five cases were confirmed in Yakima County. Since then, various local agencies have done outreach and vaccinated 74 people. The virus affects the liver and spreads through contaminated feces. It causes symptoms like fever, dark urine, yellow-tinged skin or eyes, fatigue and gastric issues. People pass it along by eating or drinking tainted food or water, or through sex. On July 30, the Washington State Department of Health announced a multi-county hepatitis A outbreak. Through genetic testing, it was found that the Yakima County hepatitis A strain that is being observed is related to the hepatitis A outbreak in Spokane.

Output: Hepatitis A outbreak increases to 11 cases in Yakima County.

Input: Consider Input: The question of cost is cited in the final line of the story, which suggests that the scoring system can "address escalating health care cost issues." But we didn't think that was specific enough to warrant a Satisfactory score. The story doesn't clue readers in to the fact that the financial burden can be measured in billions of dollars a single screening test recommended for millions of Americans can cost thousands of dollars apiece. The other cost issue specific to this test is that it takes valuable time for providers to retrieve a reputable risk calculator when sitting with a patient and enter in the specific data points, including in this case waist circumference, which clinicians often do not measure as a 'vital sign' per se. The story cites a study that credits colonoscopy with reducing the risk of death from colon cancer by about 50 percent, by removing polyps. It would have been helpful for the story to explain what that relative reduction in risk means in absolute terms (e.g. did the rate of cancer death go from 50% to 25% or from 2% to around 1%?) The story also notes that the study found that patients with a low to intermediate risk score "still have a risk between of between 1.9 percent to 9.9 percent of harboring a polyp that can develop into cancer." We'll give credit here for the story's provision of these key statistics, which do give a sense as how well the test accurately identifies truly low-risk individuals. However, we'd note that the benefit here should ideally refer to theability of the algorithm to classify people at all risk levels (including high-risk), and therefore target the highest-risk patients for colonoscopy. The story doesn't really get into discussion of the predictive power of the test, referred to as a likelihood ratio, which is in the study manuscript. However, this is a difficult concept for most health care providers and patients, and we think it's understandable that the story did not include a full discussion of this topic. The harm of a screening test such as this really is "getting it wrong" in terms of predicting someone to be at low risk and finding them to have a higher risk polyp or malignancy. As noted above, the story cautions that "low- to intermediate-risk patients still have a risk between of between 1.9 percent to 9.9 percent of harboring a polyp that can develop into cancer." This story accurately explains that the research was about predictive modeling, and explains the components of the risk score as well as the study design. There are some cautionary notes in the text, including a statement from outside expert that "the data from this study is not strong enough to spur any changes in current screening recommendations," an opinion shared by an editorialist on the study. We think this is sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story does not hype the incidence or seriousness of the disease. The prevalence statistics cited are consistent with these National Cancer Institute figures. The story contains two independent voices. The perspective they provide is a particular strengthof the article. We wish that more stories would reach out to experts not affiliated with the studies being reported on for context. The story notes that a variety of screening tests exist, but the relevant alternative here is actually other risk calculators, which the authors of the studydescribe and cite but are not routinely used. The story doesn't mention these other calculators and why they are seldom used context that would have deepened reader understanding of the issue. Although availability isn't explicitly addressed, this risk calculator is now available (implicitly) by virtue of publication of the paper. It is a simple scoring system that can be implemented based on the information in the paper, and the story makes this clear. We'll rate this Satisfactory. The story makes it sound as if this is a first-of-its-kind tool. However, risk calculation tools for colon cancer have been in circulation for many years. We could not find a news release related to this study. But in any case, the comments from two independent experts assure us that the story wasn't based on a news release.

Output: 'Scoring System' May Spot Those in Greatest Need of Colonoscopy; But one expert cautions that even 'low risk' patients can still develop suspicious polyps

Input: Consider Input: Novacyt said the FDA's approval meant that hospitals and laboratories in the United States would be able to use the test for clinical diagnosis of the coronavirus, and that the test was now available for immediate distribution in the U.S. market. "The U.S. FDA EUA authorization is another important endorsement of the performance and quality of our COVID-19 test and demonstrates once again Novacyt's growing role in tackling this pandemic," said Novacyt CEO Graham Mullis.
Output: Healthcare group Novacyt wins U.S. approval for coronavirus test.