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.

Example input: "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."
Example output: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example 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.
Q: "Like its competitors, the Times did not discuss costsanomissionwhich perhaps is more acceptable in this story since it clearly indicated that this is not very close to being a marketable product. Nevertheless, we would have liked to have seen some mention of the financial impact. Many patients with type 1 diabetes are not using currently available pumps and sensors because of the high cost of these devices. It seems likely that this new treatment, if it ever becomes widely available, will be as expensive or more so than the current pump and sensor technology. We applaud the Times for avoiding the term ""artificial pancreas"" in the headline and using it sparingly in the body of the story. The competing stories couldn't resist it. We can understand whymarketers and media relations people would favor this term because of its promotional value, but we don't think it's agood way to describe this technology in an objective piece of journalism. ""Artificial pancreas"" is misleading because we're not really anywhere close tobeing able to replicate what the normal human pancreasdoes through artificial technology. Forgetting for a momentthat the pancreas does much morethan simply dispense insulin (it alsoproduces a number of other hormones anddigestive enzymes that aren't impacted by diabetes),what's more important is how the pancreas worksin concert withthe brain and other systems to regulateglucose in a very tight range. The normal human pancreas starts releasinginsulin beforewe eat in response to complex environmental cues, whereas any artificial system would need tobe told thatmeal is coming or react to therise in glucose after thefact. Plus,insulinproduced by the bodystarts acting rightaway, whereas insulin analogues take about 20 minutes to takeeffect. Put this all together and we see that the ""artificial pancreas"" will, for the foreseeable future, require human intervention to predictpost-mealinsulin needs and dosing or else patients will be at risk of post-meal blood sugar spikes. And it's not at all clear that such a systemwill improve overall bloodsugar management compared with existing methods. The term""artificial pancreas"" conjures up a vision of totally automated glucose management and essentially a ""cure"" for type 1 diabetes. This isoverselling what the technology can do. The Times waited until the last 3 paragraphs of an 1,100-word story to hintthat an automated system could deliver unsafe doses of insulin. It isn't until the last sentence thatwe learn that the system would need to be ""exquisitely reliable"" in order to be safe. We feel the story should have raised these issues earlier and that it could have done more to emphasize just how difficult itwill befor any device to calculate insulin requirements on the fly. Insulin dosingis affected byfactorsranging from how much aperson has exercised to whatand how much they have eaten. It's conceivable that technology can account for all of these variables,but there are a lot ways thingscould go wrong, with potentially deadly results. It's a close call, butwe don't feel thestorydid enough to call attention to these issues. In contrast to its competitors, which allled readersto believe there had been a fully automated system sensing glucose levels and dispensing insulin to the participants in this study, the Times noted thatthe insulin was dispensed by a nurse based oncalculations made by a computer algorithm. The Times clearly indicated that the significance of this test was as a ""proof of concept"" that the algorithm works and is safe, not as a test of any specific device. It noted that a fully automated system combining glucosemonitoring and insulin delivery was still ""hypothetical."" In addition,the Times story wasthe only one to draw attention to the small size of this study and the fact the findings were not statistically significant for the primary outcomes. This noteofcaution was completely lacking from the competingcoverage. The story did not exaggerate the effects of type 1 diabetes. The story includes quotesfrom interviews with one of the study investigators and another researcher, and identifies both as having ties to diabetes products manufacturers. It also quotes an analyst at an investment firm. It would have been better had theyincluded one more source who didn't have commercial ties to specific products. The story describes currently available technology for glucose monitoring and insulin infusion. It describes the limitations of current approaches for managing insulin, especially during the overnight period. The story is a bit misleading in that it leaves the impression that all type 1 diabetics are currently using pumps at night. This is not actually the case. Most people are doing self monitoring of blood glucose and making judgement calls on whether and how much insulin to administer. However, the story does enough for a satisfactory in our view. The Times did a good job of describing the system used in this study and how close it is to being commercially available. It called the system ""experimental""and said that it was ""notfully automated."" It said that a fullyautomated glucose monitor/insulindelivery system was still ""hypothetical"" and would face regulatory hurdles before it could be marketed to the public. The story describes the progression from skin prick glucose testing to continuous monitoring and insulin pumps. It places the new developments in this field on this continuum. There could have beenmore discussion of many of the recent advances that have made daytime hyper- and hypoglycemia less of a problem such asthe newer short-acting insulins. The story did not rely on any news release."
A:
Insulin Study Could Lead to New Dosage Devices