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: "Not applicable. No discussion of costs, but we think it’s common knowledge that these supplements are inexpensive. We have problems with the way this was handled. The subhead said, ""32 percent reduced odds seen in postmenopausal women."" But readers need to know 32% of what? It also explained that the study surveyed ""women who were between the ages of 50 and 76 and all past menopause."" But risk rises with age. So baseline risk in a 50 year-old is different than that in a 76-year old. So we would have preferred seeing absolute numbers for those in their 50s, 60s and 70s to make the message more meaningful. Not applicable. No discussion of harms, but this is not a serious issue in this case. We’re very pleased to see HealthDay include the line: ""we should not draw any conclusions about a causal relationship."" The study was ""observational"" only, and not a randomized trial that compared the use of fish oil with a group not using fish oil and the effect on cancer rates."" And the independent expert saying, ""The lower risk of breast cancer among women taking fish oil supplements could be due to chance."" (For comparison, an ABC News headline read, ""Breast Cancer Risk Lowered by Fish Oil."" That is far too definitive, and, thus, inaccurate. The story also touched on how squishy was the evidence when it quoted the researcher: ""She could not quantify the amount of fish oil supplements consumed, because ""current use"" was defined as any amount taken by a woman. ""Most women used it four to seven days a week. We don’t know how much,"" she noted"" No overt disease mongering. An important comment was made by an independent expert from the American Cancer Society: ""The lower risk of breast cancer among women taking fish oil supplements could be due to chance."" There could have been at least one line about other research looking at lowering the risk of breast cancer. The availability of fish oil supplements is not in question. The story quoted the researcher saying ""while studies examining the link between consuming fish or omega-3 fatty acids and breast cancer risk have produced inconsistent results, this is the first study that suggested a connection between fish oil supplements and reduced breast cancer risk."" It does not appear  that the story relied solely on a news release."
A:
Fish Oil Supplements Linked to Lower Risk of Breast Cancer: Study