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.
--------
Question: The story reports not only the cost of the blood test ($60), but the cost to detect one case (including follow-up), which the researchers calculated to be $28,600. This is excellent context. The story would have been better if it had noted that the people included in this study were at unusually high risk for developing this cancer. The 34 cases found after screening 20,000 people is almost 200 times the typical annual rate in the US and other countries (less than 1 per 100,000 people per year). The ultimate measure of cost is cost-effectiveness (cost per life-year saved) which requires survival data. These analyses can also be adjusted for quality of life. While most of this story is careful to note that this test has yet to show clinical effectiveness, that caution is trampled by the claim that this blood test "boosted patients' chances of survival," something that this type of study cannot determine. The claim that this test is more accurate than existing methods is also premature, since the study did not directly compare the blood test to existing methods. Finding more early-stage cancers is a necessary but hardly sufficient step in the pathway of demonstrating benefit for a new screening test. Clinical trials are needed to address issues of false positives, over diagnosis, over treatment, and survival. The story reports that developers of this blood test still need to show low rates of false positive or negative results. A low false negative rate means there are fewer missed cases of serious disease. The trade-off, though, is a higher false positive rate. All positive tests will need to be evaluated with a gold standard diagnostic test and the safety, acceptability, and costs of that gold standard test will profoundly affect the uptake of the new screening test. While the story reports that this study was a "proof-of-concept" experiment, it then says the test boosted survival, something that can only be known after directly comparing the new test to existing methods. Making treatment "dramatically more effective" can be proven only with randomized trials. All screening tests that can detect cancers at an earlier stage will be associated with an apparent increase in survival time, but as explained in more detail below, this does not necessarily mean that patients with screen-detected cancers actually live longer than they would have otherwise. Efficacy can be established only with an RCT. The story could have done a better job pointing out the many limitations in the work. For example, there was no follow-up testing for people who had negative blood test results. Even though the researchers surveyed participants a year after the testing, they didn't produce any data on how many of the people with negative blood tests actually had cancer. What's more, the researchers compared the survival rates of their patients to a different group of cancer patients from another study, which raises questions about how comparable the groups really are. There was also no discussion of the possibility that at least some of the tumors discovered through this screening might not have developed into dangerous cancers. The story does not address lead-time bias (that longer survival might be at least partly due to finding the tumor earlier in its natural course, rather than to just the effect of treatment). The researchers noted that the effect of lead time bias can only really be known through a randomized, controlled trial. We will rate the story satisfactory on this criterion because it is careful to note that this test is not ready for clinical use and that the study results apply to only one type of cancer. However, the story would have been better if it had pointed out just how rare this cancer is, less than one case per 100,000 people in the US per year. That is about 3,000 cases in the US per year out of about 1.7 million cancers diagnosed annually. And the comment that the cancer "is prevalent" in southern China and Southeast Asia may be misleading. While it may occur more often in the region, rates are still on the order of 10 to 20 per 100,000 which is hardly widespread. The story squeaks by on this criterion because it includes a quote from an editorial in the journal that was written by an independent source. It would have been more useful to readers to include more comment and context from someone without financial ties to this study. The story is upfront about the financial interests of the researchers themselves and the company that owns the rights to their work, noting the keen interest in bringing this test to market. Although the story reports that "that nasopharyngeal carcinoma typically goes undetected until later on, when patients report symptoms such as recurring nosebleeds," it does not tell readers anything about how often these cancers are found at an early stage. Readers are not given a sense of how patients typically fare with existing methods of diagnosis. The story clearly reports that the test is still experimental and that developers have yet to show that it could be practical and effective in clinical practice. The story highlights the desire for a new blood test that could be clinically useful. The story doesn't appear to rely on a news release. It includes quotes from a telephone interview with an executive at the company developing this test.

Answer: Silicon Valley Startup Grail Sees Hope for Cancer Blood Test

Question: There's no discussion of cost, even to mention that statins are relatively inexpensive these days and are mostly generically available. To its credit, the article does mention the cost of a calcium scan. We learn that "anywhere from 50 to 200 healthy people need to take a statin daily to prevent a single heart attack for five years." That's helpful information. It also notes that the observed benefit is less for older patients. The story could have added that even those numbers might disputed by some experts who perceive no meaningful benefit. For example, one review found being on a statin does not help people with low risk for heart disease live longer. The story does a service by highlighting the harms of statins. It explains: "The most common side effect of these drugs is muscle pain, which usually goes away if patients stop taking the medicines. People taking statins are also at a higher risk of developing diabetes, which is harder to reverse." It also mentions the potential for overtreatment with the use of coronary calcium scans. However, we wish it had included absolute numbers. The story says harms are "uncommon," but provides no data to back that up. Rates of adverse effects with statins have been measured at 1 to 10%, which makes them "common" in the definition of the European Medicines Agency. Also noteworthy is that some contend that adverse effects of statins have not been reliably reported. The story doesn't explain the quality of the study, or of studies on which current guidelines are based. We don't explicitly learn that this is a modelling study. In other words, this study consisted mostly of reinterpretations of math, not re-evaluations of real-life patients. The researchers said they were unable to obtain enough data on all possible harms and age-specific data on some harm outcomes, "so the risk thresholds we determined may still be too low." There is no disease-mongering here. This story includes sources that weren't involved in the study. The study's authors reported no conflicts of interest. The story could have acknowledged the influence of pharmaceutical companies in creating guidelines for statin use. The alternative of not taking a statin was the key message here, and that's laudable. However, we have a couple of concerns. First, we learn that "some statins were more effective than others, with atorvastatin (the generic name for Lipitor) being the best of the bunch." However, the story doesn't explain on what basis some statins are "more effective." In fact, some statins may be more effective at lower cholesterol, but the study found that no statin rises above others when it comes to the outcomes that counts most to patients reducing cardiovascular deaths. Also, the story doesn't mention lifestyle interventions diet and exercise. The story makes it clear that statins are widely prescribed. The story states this an attempt to better weigh the benefits and harms of statin use. There was a good range of interviewees with no reliance on a news release

Answer: Before Starting A Statin, Talk It Over With Your Doctor

Question: "The sight of the moon's shadow passing directly in front of the sun, blotting out all but the halo-like solar corona, may draw the largest live audience for a celestial event in human history. When those watching via broadcast and online media are factored into the mix, the spectacle will likely smash records. "It will certainly be the most observed total eclipse in history," astronomer Rick Fienberg of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) said last week. The eclipse begins its cross-country trajectory over the Pacific Coast of Oregon in late morning. It will reach South Carolina's Atlantic shore some 90 minutes later. The total eclipse of the sun is considered one of the most spell-binding phenomena in nature but it rarely occurs over a wide swath of land, let alone one of the world's most heavily populated countries at the height of summer. In terms of audience potential, it is hard to top the United States, with its mobile and affluent population, even though the direct path is mostly over rural areas, towns and small cities. The largest is Nashville, Tennessee, a city of 660,000 residents. Even so the advent of social media and inexpensive high-tech optics have boosted public awareness, assuring what many U.S. experts predict will be unprecedented viewership for the so-called "Great American Eclipse." Some might take issue with that prediction, citing a solar eclipse visible over parts of India, Nepal, Bangladesh and central China in July 2009. National Geographic estimated 30 million people in Shanghai and Hangzhou alone were in its path that day. On Monday, the deepest part of the shadow, or umbra, cast by the moon will fall over a 70-mile-wide (113-km-wide), 2,500-mile-long (4,000-km-long) ""path of totality"" traversing 14 states. The 12 million people who live there can view the eclipse at its fullest merely by walking outside and looking up, weather permitting. (tmsnrt.rs/2fNQHFb) LIVESTREAMING AND PRICE-GOUGING Some 200 million Americans reside within a day's drive of the totality zone, and as many as 7 million, experts say, are expected to converge on towns and campgrounds along the narrow corridor for the event. Many are attending multiday festivals featuring music, yoga and astronomy lectures. Millions more could potentially watch in real time as the eclipse is captured by video cameras mounted on 50 high-altitude balloons and streamed online in a joint project between NASA and Montana State University. A partial eclipse will appear throughout North America. Adding further to the excitement is the wide availability of affordable solar-safe sunglasses produced by the millions and selling so fast that suppliers were running out of stock. The owner of one leading manufacturer reported price gouging by second-hand dealers who were buying up large supplies and reselling them over the internet at a huge mark-up. Not all the hoopla will unfold on dry land. Welsh pop singer Bonnie Tyler is slated to perform her 1983s hit single "Total Eclipse of the Heart" aboard a cruise liner as the vessel sails into the path of totality from Florida on Monday. Back on the ground, forest rangers, police and city managers in the total eclipse zone are bracing for a crush of travelers they fear will cause epic traffic jams and heighten wildfire hazards. "Imagine 20 Woodstock festivals occurring simultaneously across the nation," Michael Zeiler, an AAS advisory panel member wrote on his website, GreatAmericanEclipse.com, referring to the famously chaotic 1969 outdoor rock extravaganza in upstate New York. Hundreds of residents in a prime-viewing area in Oregon had to evacuate on Saturday under threat from a wildfire raging in the Deschutes National Forest, according to InciWeb fire-tracking website. The so-called Milli Fire, which has scorched more than 7,8OO acres (3,162 hectare), is one of seven burning in Oregon, Montana and Idaho, three of the states crossed by the totality path. Zeiler, an avowed "eclipse chaser" who made the 650-mile (1,046-km) drive from his New Mexico home to Wyoming for a choice view, said South Carolina is likely to see the greatest influx as the destination state closest to the entire U.S. Eastern seaboard. Monday's event will be the first total solar eclipse spanning the entire continental United States since 1918 and the first visible anywhere in the Lower 48 states in 38 years. The next one over North America is due in just seven years, in April 2024."

Answer:
Millions of Americans to gaze upon Monday's once-in-a-lifetime eclipse.