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: The story makes clear that the test is expensive and that Medicare and some other insurance plans cover it. Although the article provides data about the total number of people randomized to the two arms of the study, it does not go beyond what the news release offers about the percentage/relative increases in remission of symptoms and response to drugs. No absolute numbers are given, so it’s impossible to know how many of the patients in each arm actually benefited and to what extent. All it provides is the relative improvement in “response” to medication: “researchers found a 30% greater response to the medicine when the test was applied.” No data is provided for remission. But when you look at the raw numbers regarding remission rates, and compare the results of both groups, they don’t look as impressive: Of those who didn’t receive genetic testing, 10% reached remission. With the tests, it was 15%. This gives the reader perspective that the absolute difference was 5%. Also, the news release hints that at least some of the results might not have been statistically significant, and we’re curious about that and think it should have been explained in the story: “The GeneSight-treated cohort also demonstrated higher symptom improvement which approached statistical significance (Chart 1).” The test itself — using DNA taken from a cheek swab — carries no physical risks. But the story needed more detail about the potential downsides. As noted in more detail in the TIME coverage of the story, the various “scales” that are used to assess drugs aren’t organized by how effective the drugs might be based on genetics, but instead how many adverse events they might cause. So, a person is told to take certain drugs not because they’ll be more effective than other drugs, they’re just less likely to cause problems. Could selecting drugs based on how many problems they cause lead some people to choose drugs that aren’t as effective for treating depression? That would seem to be biggest issue in terms of harms — that the test would simply be wrong for some people. Also, the test appears to show results for drugs beyond antidepressants — including some drugs that are known to cause dependency or can be deadly when taken alone, mixed together or with other drugs, such as hypnotics and benzodiazepines (Ambien and Xanax, for example). This is important to consider in a group of people already at higher risk for suicide. All of this means adverse event data is vital — was it indeed lower in the gene-tested group? If adverse event data were not available from the company or the investigators at the University of Michigan who led the study, the article could have noted the fact. The story did not do enough to establish that this research is still preliminary — it has not been published nor peer-reviewed, and everyone is relying on just a little bit of data released by the company. We should all be skeptical at this point. No disease mongering here; moderate to severe depression is a real and prevalent disorder and danger. We also thought it was wise how the story included a patient narrative with unclear results–she’s feeling better, but not 100%. That is a very powerful way to explain that this new tool isn’t a silver bullet. The story quotes outside experts and notes that the principal investigator is an unpaid consultant to the company that makes the test. We’re also told that the study was funded by the maker of the genetic test. Although quantification is mostly missing, the article properly points out that clinical judgment-based treatment alone misses the mark a lot of the time, and is essentially educated guesswork. The article might have been strengthened even more had it given information about alternatives or adjuncts to drugs, such as behavioral therapy and electroshock therapy. It’s clear from the story that the test, marketed as GeneSight, is available. The story is pretty careful to put the findings of the study — presented at a conference in New York — in the context of overall advances in the use of pharmacogenetics and precision medicine, treatments increasingly tailored to an individual’s genetic makeup. And it notes that the Myriad Genetics test is not the only player in the gene-based medicine field. The story also includes the information that the study was “blinded” and randomized, but (happily) avoids the hyperbole of the news release which calls it a “landmark” study and the largest ever of its kind. As noted above, the article quotes outside sources.
A:
Which Anti-Depressant is Right for You? Your DNA Can Shed Some Light