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: "Costs and the cost-effectiveness of this strategy are not discussed. Any discussion of a preventive strategy should include comments on cost. Avandia and metformin, at the doses used in the study, cost about $195 a month, according to drugstore.com. We get absolute benefits, relative benefits, and the all-important number needed to treat (NNT). Very nice. While harms weren't quantified, the story provided a good amount of detail, context, and caveat about the safety of this regimen. We get many important details about the study: the number of patients, the enrollment criteria, randomization, placebo control, half doses, and the length of follow-up. It also describes some limitations of the study, such as its inability to detect rare adverse events due to its size. It's an important caveat, particularly with a cardiovascular cloud hanging over rosiglitazone. The author also points to the editorial's observation that the approach didn't affect the problems in the pancreas that underly diabetes and which must be addressed by such a strategy. The author is very specific about the thresholds for the patient population, and who was considered at high risk to progress to diabetes. We note that it was judiciously limited in its use of the term ""prevention."" Props to the author for citing theeditorialwritten by two independent expertsand published in the same issue of the Lancet. This article selects several of their many cogent comments. Ideally, another independent source outside the publication would've been consulted, too. The story describes how GSK has a dog in this fight, funding the study and manufacturing Avandia. The story also provides the institutional affiliations of Zinman and the two editorialists. While it's probably covered in the GSK funding source, we'll point out that several investigators had other financial ties to GSK, too. The article talks about the effectiveness of lifestyle changes and the challenge of implementing them. It also reviews the barriers to using full-dose rosi because of adverse events. It's clear Avandia and metformin are currently available. We're told of similar prior studies and the novelty of attempting a low-dose regimen to block progression. We don't see evidence that the article relied on any news releases."
A:
Low-dose combination of Avandia and metformin decreases progression to diabetes by two-thirds with few side effects