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.
One example is below.
Q: "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."
A: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Rationale: 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.
Q: The study published Monday in the journal Health Affairs found problems even with apps considered to be among the highest-quality offerings on the market. There's been a proliferation of health apps for mobile phones. According to the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, there are more than 165,000 health apps out there. "The state of health apps is even worse than we thought," said Dr. James Madara, chief executive of the American Medical Association, who was not involved in the study. This wasn't a survey of step-counting fitness apps. The research team reviewed 137 apps designed for patients with serious ongoing health problems, including asthma, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and depression. The health apps, for example, help those with diabetes track and record every blood sugar reading and insulin injection. One invites users to photograph their moles, and offers analysis on whether they are changing in a way that signals skin cancer. The study suggests that, though some apps are good, there are problems. Perhaps most concerning was what happened when doctor reviewers entered information that should have drawn warnings from the app like selecting "yes" when the app asked if the user was feeling suicidal, or entering extremely abnormal levels for blood sugar levels. Only 28 of 121 apps responded appropriately to such red-flag information, researchers said. Health apps "should have some common-sense standards" said lead author Dr. Karandeep Singh, a University of Michigan internist. "The vast majority of apps do not have any kind of response." Another issue is the safeguarding of medical privacy. While patients commonly enter health information into apps, a lot of the information is shared through insecure methods like text message or emailing, the researchers said. The reviewed apps came from Apple iTunes and Google Play app stores most of them free. Each app was reviewed by a doctor and a tech expert. The researchers named most of the apps but didn't publish their reviews. Instead, they shared them with the app companies. Singh said they were interested in "identifying gaps that need to be filled" instead of naming winners and losers. Overall, the industry needs to do more work to improve safety and privacy, he said. And patients need to go beyond consumer ratings on websites before depending on apps to make crucial decisions about their health. Health apps face a limited amount of regulation. For example, the Food and Drug Administration does not require premarket review for most apps, though it can require a developer to remove apps under certain circumstances. The AMA's Madara said the doctors organization has been working with others to form a group to look at health apps and standards. "It's the Wild West out there," he said.
A:
Many smartphone health apps don't flag danger, says review.