Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: "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."
Solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Explanation: 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.

Problem: The costs of antidepressants weren't discussed, but perhaps that is understandable in this kind of broad overview of a meta-analysis. Fluoxetine (prozac) and venalfaxine (effexor) are now both generic. So costs are pretty low. The story gave detailed breakdowns of percent improvement in scores on depression tests and provided an estimate of the number needed to treat in order for one to benefit. The difference in benefits between older and younger patients was highlighted. There was at least the acknowledgement that these drugs do carry side effects but none was specified nor quantified. Several of the limitations of the meta-analysis were mentioned in the story. Of course, one key limitation in such cases is how they selected studies for the analyses (ones already available to them from the National Institute of Mental Health and from drug companies). This may not bias the results but may bias the interpretation (the authors say they only know these effects for prozac/effexor and can't comment on other drugs; that could possibly lead a reader to incorrectly conclude that only prozac/effexor are shown to be effective.) No disease mongering about depression here. The story interviewed Irving Kirsch, frequently cited/quoted on antidepressant research issues. It also did a good job of noting potential conflicts of interest. The story at least noted alternatives including psychotherapy and exercise, but didn't give information about the effects, pros/cons of these options. The availability of antidepressants was not in question. The story didn't analyze the novelty claim that the researchers made: "To our knowledge, this is the first research synthesis in this area to use complete longitudinal person-level data from a large set of published and unpublished studies. The results do not support previous findings that antidepressants show little benefit except for severe depression." The second point was made in the story, but perhaps the story should have explained a bit more about the methodological reasons for why this analysis was or what made it different or important. As to the first (questionable) part of the claim, what's novel is this: more studies than the previous analysis, adolescents/adults/older adults included and analyzed by these groups. The story did not rely on a news release.
Solution:
Study suggests overall benefit from antidepressants