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: "This issueis alluded to obliquely in the quote that ends the article,whichsuggests thatpalliative caremay help address ""critical concerns regarding the use of health care services at the end of life."" This is notspecific enough to satisfy the criterion. This story adequately quantifies the survival benefit and at least mentions the improvements in quality of life and depression scores. It also provides some reasonable explanations as to why palliative care may be beneficial when administered early. Although we wish it had been more precise in its characterization of the depression and quality of life benefits (how big was the improvement? on which specific symptoms? ), we feel there's enoughhere for a satisfactory. As with the competing coverage, we'll rule this one not applicable since the harms of palliative care are thought to be minimal. An excellent overview of the study's methods and outcomes. And we were particularly impressed that the WSJ delved into limitations of the research, which few other outlets attempted to tackle in any detail. This is important, in our view, because even the most well conducted studies have limitations which may cause them to produceincomplete or ""wrong"" answers to important research questions. In this case,as the WSJ points out, the study was conducted atone of the top institutions in the country under conditions which may not be repeatable elsewhere. In addition, the patients receiving palliativetreatment also received more general attention from caregivers, which canhave a beneficial effect. It may be thatmore attention in general rather than the specific palliativesupport offered in thestudy is the key to making patients feel better and live longer with advanced cancer. No disease-mongering of cancerhere. Although it didn't include the breadth of perspectives included in some of the other stories about this study,this storydid include an interview with an expert not affiliated with the studyenough fora satisfactory. Since this source is the past president of American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine a professional group that obviously supports increased awareness and use of palliative carewe wish it had also included a comment from someone without these industry ties. As noted in the competing reviews, the point of the study was to compare early palliative care with existing standard cancer treatment. Wewish, however,that the story had spent more time discussing what standardoncology care (the current ""existingalternative"") entails. As other stories covering the study pointed out,access to palliative care is limited by complicated reimbursement andlack ofskilled providers in some areas. TheWSJ didn't mentionthesebarriers. This story doesn't do a good enough job explaining what's newsworthy about the research. Palliative care is widely viewed as synonymous with hospice care provided in the last days of life. But this study suggests that it can be initiated early after diagnosis to improve outcomes something that hasn't been demonstrated previously in a rigorously conducted trial. This important distinction isn't explicitly discussed. Since the story includes an interview with an expert not affiliated with the study, we can be sure that it didn't rely solely on a news release."
A:
Study: Advanced Cancer Patients Receiving Early Palliative Care Lived Longer