Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: "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."
Solution: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Explanation: 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.

Problem: Although it is not known how much abaloparatide will cost at this stage, the article does discussthe costof its would-be competitor, Forteo, which costs about $2,500 a month for those without insurance. The story does agoodjob discussingthe quantitative evidence from the study. (The few missteps, which are actually quite critical in their nature, were related to a not-entirely-adequate grasp of the study design. This we discuss in detail in a separate criterion, Quality of Evidence, below.) The story discusses several measures by which the effectiveness of abaloparatide was compared to the placebo (and Forteo), including the number of spine fractures, the number of other types of fractures, and the number of cases of hypercalcemia. And it does so using actual numbers. For example: "Fewer women on the injectable drug abaloparatide had spine fractures (0.58 percent) than women receiving a placebo (4.22 percent)" The story lists nausea and heart palpitations among the serious side effects of both abaloparatide and Forteo. The story contains a subtle misunderstandingof the study design that leads it to misinterpret the quantitative evidence for abaloparatide and Forteo. The study's presentation of the quantitative results suggest that the figures can be directly juxtaposed for the two drugs, when this is not actually the case. Toward the end of the research article on which the story is based, we have the following statement: "Comparison of abaloparatide vs teriparatide [Forteo] for the primaryefficacy end point [cases of spine fractures] was not part of the study objectivesbecause the study would have required a sample size of approximately22,000 per treatment group to provide 90% powerto detect the treatment difference between abaloparatide (observedrate, 0.58%) and teriparatide (observed rate, 0.84%)based on our study results." This effectivelymeans that comparing the 0.58% observed rate of spine fractures under abaloparatide and the 0.84% rate under Forteo, is, quite simply put, rather meaningless. The clinical trial study was never powered to discover a significant difference between the two, i.e. the study was not designed to be able to detect any meaningful difference. Indeed, the statements by Dr. Caroline Messer, interviewed in the story, and the research article's accompanying editorial, partly reprinted at the end of the story, both emphasize that this research study does not in fact compare abaloparatide directly to Forteo. Another minor point is that Forteo had to be injected via its trademarked injection pen in the study, rather than subcutaneously as was done with abaloparatide and the placebo. This obviously has implications for the blinded nature of the study. While an ideal clinical trial is double-blinded, in this case both patients and doctors knew when Forteo was being administered. The story shares the fact that "A study based on 2010 U.S. Census data estimated that more than 3 million women between the ages of 50 and 69 have osteoporosis. A 60-year-old woman has a 44 percent lifetime risk of fracture due to low bone density." An explanation of the term "lifetime risk" would be helpful to the reader. (In this setting, it meansthe probability of experiencing a fracture during the remaining years of life. In fact, the figure reported is really a "residual lifetime risk.") Now for a slight tangent: It is great that the story chose to report an absolute risk here rather than a relative risk. This is a point we at HealthNewsReview.org try to hammer home. In a 2007 article in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Nguyen et. al. in their article titled "Residual lifetime risk of fractures in women and men" had the following comment on relative versus absolute risk: Communication of risk in the osteoporosis field has traditionally relied on the concept of relative risk. However, relative risk can be misleading to patients and clinicians,(42) because the interpretation of a relative risk or its change is highly dependent on the baseline risk. For instance, doubling a minor risk is still minor, but doubling a common risk is alarming. It is therefore desirable that individuals who have BMD measurements be informed about their fracture probability risk category instead of their relative scores. (4) The lifetime risk estimates from this study provide such a means for communication of risk to an individual patient. Dr. Caroline Messer of the Center for Pituitary and Neuroendocrine Disorders at Lenox Hill Hospital was interviewed as an independent source. She correctly pointed out that a head-to-head trial directly comparing Forteo and abaloparatide is needed in the next step of research. The story also discloses that the research study wasfunded by the maker of abaloparatide, Radius Health. However, the story doesn'tpoint out that the study author (whom they quote extensively) also serves on a Radius Health Advisory Board. The story describes Forteo, the current dominant drug on the market for treating low bone mineral density. But see Quality of Evidence section above for how this could have been done better. The story states that abaloparatide is currently in a Phase 3 trial stage. The story does not make clear the novelty of abaloparatide, and seems to focus rather on the similarities between it and Forteo. The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Solution:
Injected Drug May Help Fight Osteoporosis in Women