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.

Example Input: This is a tricky one. The story does not explicitly address cost, except to call text messaging "a scalable and affordable approach." For many (or most) patients, the cost of receiving four text messages a week would likely be negligible covered by an individual's phone plan or by nominal text rates. However, not everyone owns a mobile phone, a fact that makes access (and cost) a more significant issue. However, the story does deliver on this point. The story discusses both the number of U.S. adults who own mobile phones (90 percent) and the fact that text messages are more accessible than other forms of mobile health communication (such as apps, which require patients to own smartphones or other smart devices). So, while we'd prefer a more in-depth discussion here, we'll awarda Satisfactory rating for the story's nod in this direction. The story addresses the range of benefits reported in the study, such as reduced cholesterol and blood pressure, but doesn't quantify that information or offer readers any context. For example, while the story says "patients who had received the text messages had reduced their cholesterol," the JAMA paper reports that patients who received the text messages had a "mean difference [of] 5 mg/dL" in "LDL-C." In other words, the information in the paper, while quantified, probably isn't very useful to many readers outside the health industry. Is "a mean difference of5 mg/dL in LDL-C" good? Bad? Irrelevant? This is where reporters have an opportunity to shine. If a news story can take those numbers and translate them into language that is accessible to non-experts, it provides a very real service. It would have been great to see that here. As long as people aren't driving and checking their cell phones, there don't appear to be any harms associated with receiving well-meaning text messages four times a week, so we'll mark this one "not applicable." This is a strong suit. The story not only offers a concise, but good, summary of the study but it also goes out of its way to address the study's limitations. For example, the study notes that the study "can't tell us whether text messaging could eventually lead to fewer subsequent heart attacks among the patients receiving those messages or whether the positive health outcomes would continue past the six-month study window." Good points, and we're glad the story includes them. No disease mongering here. The story includes input from an outside expert who was not involved with the research. The story clearly meets our bar here, although it would have been stronger if it had reached out to at least one more independent source preferably one who hadn't written an editorial that ran in conjunction with the paper in JAMA. Yes, the editorial was independent and provides some insightful commentary. But it also means we already knew where this source stood on the issue. Finding another reputable expert, who hadn't already weighed in publicly on the work, would have been great. The focus of the story is not so much on how the text message intervention directly reduced heart disease risk, but on the extent to which it resulted in patients taking steps to reduce their own risk such as by exercising more, smoking less, making dietary changes, or taking prescription drugs on a regular basis. The story does discuss other "mobile health interventions," such as smartphone apps but notes that there don't appear to be many mobile health projects that rely simply on text messages. The story also looks at how the text messages helped patients pursue lifestyle changes like exercising more and smoking less that reduced their risk. It was fairly clear from the story that this was a clinical trial, and that this particular service doesn't seem to be available to offer customized, encouraging text messages for heart disease patients. From the start, the story frames this research in the context of the much larger "mobile health" field. For example, the story notes that "While there are more than 100,000 health-related apps on the market, the evidence to date is lacking as to whether many of those apps are safe or effective." Since the story includes quotes from an interview, we can be fairly certain it went beyond the related JAMA news release.
Example Output: Text Reminders Help People Lower Cholesterol, Blood Pressure

Example Input: Chaiya, under pressure from health activists and doctors who campaigned to have him sacked, said declaring compulsory licenses on the drugs would save Thailand more than 3 billion baht ($100 million) over the next five years. "The findings have convinced me to go ahead with the CLs since the ministry's policy is to give patients good access to quality drugs at cheap prices," Chaiya said of the review by a panel of Health Ministry officials. The decision is a blow to major pharmaceutical companies which had lobbied hard to reverse the CL policy launched by the previous government appointed after a bloodless 2006 coup. The three drugs are Letrozole, a breast cancer medicine made by Novartis AG, the breast and lung cancer drug Docetaxel by Sanofi-Aventis, and Roche's Erlotinib, used for treating lung, pancreatic and ovarian cancer. A license issued on a leukemia drug, Glivec, was cancelled last month after its maker, Novartis, agreed to supply it free to hundreds of Thai patients. Shortly after a democratically-elected government took power in February, Chaiya ordered the review of a policy he said was a "politically correct decision, but not legally correct". At the time he said the government could afford the full cost of the drugs, if it meant avoiding trade retaliation by the United States, home to some of the world's biggest drug firms. U.S. officials denied there were any plans to impose sanctions on Bangkok, although Thailand was placed on a watch list, meaning Washington believed its respect for patents had weakened. When Chaiya, a businessman with no medical training, fired the Health Ministry's top official negotiating cheaper prices from foreign drug firms, outraged health activists and doctors launched a campaign to remove him. Chaiya said on Monday the ministry would buy cheaper versions of the cancer drugs from generic producers, such as Indian firms which already supply copy-cat HIV-AIDS medicines to Thailand. Under World Trade Organisation rules, countries can issue a compulsory license to make or buy generic versions of patented drugs deemed critical to public health as long as the medicines are meant for domestic use. Former Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla overrode Merck's AIDS drug Efavirenz in late 2006, arguing that Thailand could not afford patented drugs for a national health plan that covers about 80 percent of the country's 63 million people. A few months later he did the same on a Sanofi-Aventis heart medicine and an AIDS drug made by Abbott Laboratories, which refused to register several new medicines in Thailand. Mongkol, who targeted the four cancer drugs weeks before he left office, has defended the CL policy against major drug firms which accused him of stealing their intellectual property rights. ($1= 30 Baht)
Example Output: Thailand will override cancer drug patents.

Example Input: Dozens of children and young adults have been diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma and other forms of cancer in a four-county region of southwestern Pennsylvania where energy companies have drilled more than 3,500 wells since 2008. An investigation by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette this year identified six Ewing cases in a single school district. The cause of Ewing sarcoma is unknown, and there's been no evidence linking the Pennsylvania cases to drilling and hydraulic fracturing, the method that energy companies use to extract natural gas from shale rock. The American Cancer Society says there are "no known lifestyle-related or environmental causes" of Ewing, a rare bone cancer that's diagnosed in about 200 children and teens across the U.S. each year. But the families, joined by anti-drilling activists, demanded that Wolf launch an environmental investigation into the cancers that have devastated their loved ones. "I want answers, and I want answers now. Give us the truth," said Carla Marratto Cumming, whose 19-year-old brother, Luke Blanock, died of Ewing sarcoma in 2016. "What's going on is killing our families, and it's not OK." The region's lawmakers recently secured a $100,000 state grant for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to perform genetic testing of Ewing patients, but the families said it's not enough. They gave Wolf an earful when he met with them in the hallway outside his office at the Capitol on Monday. Luke Blanock's mother, Janice, invited Wolf to go on a tour of fracking sites "to see exactly how fracking is wreaking havoc on our kids, families, our homes, everything." Breaking down, she continued: "You have to see it in person. You can't even understand what we've gone through." Wolf promised to make the childhood cancers a priority and said his health department is looking into the possibility of additional research. In a statement, his spokesman said the potential research would "explore possible effects of natural resource extraction, especially regarding these rare childhood cancers. It is imperative that we more thoroughly research and advance the science on the health effects of fracking by building upon previous research and investigating the concern that there is a relationship between fracking and childhood cancers." A Pennsylvania Department of Health investigation earlier this year did not confirm a cancer cluster in the region, a finding that was met with skepticism by activists who say the agency failed to include some cases in its study. Gas industry officials, meanwhile, called for an "objective, rigorous and science-based approach" to "these complicated and heartbreaking health matters." "While some continue to sensationalize tragedy, there's absolutely no credible link between natural gas-related activities which are strongly regulated and instances of rare childhood cancers," said David Spigelmyer, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
Example Output:
Pennsylvania families demand investigation into rare cancers.