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.

Input: Consider Input: "Although the story mentions the cost of immunosuppressant drugs, the story does not mention the cost of the new transplant technique. Given the preliminary nature of the findings, it is not yet possible to quantify the benefits of the new transplantation technique. The story does not mention any potential harms of the therapy. The story adequately describes the strength of the available evidence. The story describes thestudies as ""preliminary"" and brings attention tothe very small sample sizes. However, the story could have made less use of such terms as ""groundbreaking"" and ""breakthrough"" to describe the treatment in light of the preliminary nature of the findings. The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of kidney disease. The story quotes multiple experts The story mentions immunosuppressants with traditional transplantation as the alternative to the new transplant technique. The story clearly states that the transplant technique is experimental and is only being performed in a handful of medical centers. The story clearly states that the treatment is a new approach. Because the story quotes multiple sources, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information."

Output: Some transplant patients OK without years of drug treatment

Input: Consider Input: The release does not mention cost. The FDA evaluates drugs without consideration of cost, so it's understandable that they wouldn't comment on it and that's why we're rating this Not Applicable. But let's be real here: The value of a new drug is a function not just of how well it works, but its cost-effectiveness. So we look forward to the day when any news release about a new drug even one from the FDA will include some mention of cost in its message. This release gives the preliminary results from a single study of 310 patients. Because the drug is experimental, long-term results haven't been studied. Of the 310 patients enrolled in the lone trial upon which the approval is based, 14.8 percent showed some shrinkage of tumors during the assessment period lasting from 2.1 to about 13.8 months. For a subset of patients who were classified as having a positive response to PD-L1 expression, the response was 26 percent. As noted above, tumor shrinkage doesn't always lead to improvements in survival or quality of life. It is a surrogate endpoint a substitute for the main outcome which is survival. Although this drug looks promising, to be fully transparent about its benefits as currently known, the release should have explained this. As noted in the "Summary," another larger study is underway to assess the drug's impact on extending life and improving quality of life. The release includes a description of side effects of this treatment. The most common ones included fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, urinary tract infection, fever (pyrexia) and constipation. The release also mentions that patients taking the drug have an increased risk of infection and serious side effects that are "immune-mediated." We would have liked a bit more context on what this term means for patients. The release outlines that this is the very first clinical trial of this compound for safety and efficacy, and under which regulatory paths the drug was assessed, including "breakthrough therapy designation, priority review status and accelerated approval." We're giving this release the benefit of the doubt and rating it Satisfactory for its bare bones description of the trial (and since we already addressed the lack of long-term survival data in the "Benefits" section.) As it stands, the results from the small trial were preliminary and short-term and did not reflect long-term survival. We would have liked to see a reference or link to the completed trial where one could look at the results to assess independently or learn more about the outcomes. We think the release should have provided more data on the patient demographics, the treatment regimen (dosing amount and schedule) as well as the range in tumor reduction. There is no disease mongering. This release describes the approval of a new drug by a regulatory agency, but we'd still like to know who sponsored the study that's the basis for the approval. It's not enough to state who markets the drug. The release does not give us very much information about alternatives. These patients had already received other therapy and their cancer had recurred, so it is implied that they had no other alternatives. But this isn't stated very clearly. We can assume (and it seems evident) that the platinum-based therapy that the patients didn't respond to initially is the usual treatment. The FDA's approval of a drug clears the way for the drug sponsor to scale up production and begin marketing and selling the product. (The FDA doesn't state this explicitly but it can be inferred.) A NYT article said the drug would be available in about two months. The release clearly states this product is first of its kind for this type of cancer. We found no unjustifiable language.

Output: FDA approves new, targeted treatment for bladder cancer

Input: Consider Input: "No cost was discussed. Benefits were described but only in relative terms. Half of what? A third of what? We wish absolute data were provided. Potential harms were listed but not quantified. How often do they occur? The radio piece didn't give much information on how the studies were done and therefore, not much on the quality of the evidence. But the NPRonline piece at least offered direct links to both studies and to an editorial something often overlooked by many news organizations covering studies in journals. For that reason, we give this a satisfactory grade. There was no disease mongering. The story used one independent expert source in addition to interviewing one of the study authors. For a short radio and web piece, the story did a good job of comparing the new drugs with injections (through the story of a patient's experience) and mentioning the problems with another MS drug Tysbari and mentioning another new oral MS drug that may be approved soon. The story was clear that the drugs in question are not yet on the market and that ""federal regulators may go slowly with the two new drugs."" The story appropriately addressed the novelty of the oral drugs and added something the AP and LA Times stories did not about approval of another new oral MS drug that may occur soon. The story clearly did not rely on a news release."
Output: MS Patients May Soon Bypass Painful Injections