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: Publishing a study that found risk score tools are only around 46 percent accurate on how likely psychopathic convicts are to kill, rape or assault again, they said probation officers and judges should set little or no store by such tests. They warned that clinicians carrying out such classifications must be aware of their severe limitations, and make sure prisoners undergo comprehensive psychiatric diagnosis before any risks assessment is made. “If you apply these (tests) to somebody who is a psychopath, they’re utterly useless, you might as well toss a coin,” said Jeremy Coid, director of the forensic psychiatry research unit at Queen Mary University of London who led the study. “They will not predict accurately at all,” he told reporters at a briefing in London about his findings. Coid and other forensic psychiatrists say the findings - which also showed the tools perform only moderately well in prisoners with disorders like schizophrenia, depression, drug and alcohol dependence - could have major implications for risk assessment in criminal justice systems. “There are increasing expectations of public protection from violent behavior, and psychiatrists can be seriously criticized if they make wrong decisions,” he said. Seena Fazel, a consultant forensic psychiatrist at Britain’s University of Oxford, said the reliability of the tests’ predictive ability was so low that it might be best not to use them at all - and warned that at the very least, their results should only be noted by parole boards, rather than acted upon. “If you’re going to use these instruments, be aware of their strengths and limitations,” he told reporters. The estimated prevalence of adult psychopathy in the general population is around 1 percent, but that rises to between 15 percent and 25 percent among men in prison. Coid, whose study was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, analyzed data from 1,396 male prisoners in England and Wales who were interviewed between six and 12 months before their release. All the men were serving sentences of two or more years for a sexual or violent offences. The prisoners were assessed for personality disorders, symptoms of schizophrenia, depression and drug and alcohol dependence, as well as being measured for psychopathy on a reputable scale known as Hare Psychopathy Check List. After their release, data on their re-offending rates was added to the study, and showed that among three different re-offending risk assessment tools used before their release, the accuracy among psychopaths was below 50 percent. While the tools were more accurate in predictions for prisoners with no mental health disorders - at around 75 percent accuracy - they were only around 60 percent right when it came to prisoners diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression. For prisoners with anti-social personality disorders the predictive value of the tests ranged from poor to little more than chance, with an average 53.2 percent predictive accuracy. And for the 70 prisoners rated as psychopathic, none of the tests was statistically better than chance. Coid said the results suggest it is time to question the expectations put on psychiatrists and psychologists asked to forecast future behavior of offenders, and to consider what can happen to their reputations if predictions are wrong. “The easy solution is to be highly restrictive on who is released, and be risk averse. However, even for serious offenders, most will be released at some stage and someone has to carry out a risk assessment,” he said. “We need to prioritize the development of new assessment tools for these hard-to-predict groups.”
Example Output: Predicting violence in psychopaths is 'no more than chance'.

Example Input: On 5 December 2018, the Seattle Times published an article whose terrifying headline ensured its own virality: “Rare brain-eating amoebas killed Seattle woman who rinsed her sinuses with tap water. Doctor warns this could happen again.” Sadly for those who visited this page hoping to find that the reporting was exaggerated or made-up, this really happened. Though her anonymity was maintained, the story of a 69-year-old Seattle woman who used tap water in her Neti pot for over a year and then died from a Balamuthia mandrillaris brain infection was documented in a 20 September 2018 case study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases: We report the case of a 69-year-old female who presented with a chronic nasal skin rash, new onset focal seizure, and a cerebral ring-enhancing lesion after a year of improper nasal irrigation. Despite aggressive and novel anti-amoebic treatment, she died as a result of a Balamuthia mandrillaris brain infection. One year before developing the brain infection, the authors reported, the woman developed a chronic sinus infection whose symptoms were not relieved by medication. She turned to using a Neti pot to rinse her sinuses, but instead of using sterile or saline water as directed, she used tap water filtered with a Brita system. After a month of this practice, and without any relief of her sinus symptoms, “she developed a quarter-sized, red raised rash on the right side of the bridge of her nose and raw red skin at the nasal opening.” Though several misdiagnoses followed, no doctor correctly recognized the rash as a symptom of an amoebic infection. The report stated that a year after that initial rash developed, the woman developed a seizure that required hospitalization. At that time, the doctors identified a lesion on the right side of the brain which they decided to biopsy. Some 19 days later, after a continued decline in the patient’s health, scientists from Johns Hopkins University suggested the possibility that the cause of her malady was an amoebic infection, and the Centers for Disease Control rushed a novel drug for her treatment. Unfortunately, they were unable to halt the progression of the disease, and the patient’s family made the decision to remove her from life support. An autopsy determined the cause of death to be Granulomatous Amebic Encephalitis (GAE), which the CDC defines as “a serious infection of the brain and spinal cord that typically occurs in persons with a compromised immune system.” In this case, the causative agent was an extremely rare amoeba named Balamuthia mandrillaris, one of three forms of amoeba known to be capable of infecting and consuming the human brain. Amoebas are a broad group of taxonomically mixed unicellular organisms that consume surrounding cellular material through absorption, and that express an ability to take on a variety of shapes. Several different species are associated with disease, most notably Naegleria fowleri, commonly known as the “brain-eating amoeba” that can cause a different kind of brain infection called primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM). Balamuthia mandrillaris was discovered in 1986 in the brain of a mandrill monkey during an autopsy at the San Diego Zoo and is now recognized to be a cause of GAE in both humans, several primates, and other animals, with an estimated 200 cases of human infection ever documented. The amoebae are ubiquitous in soil and groundwater although their presence is not expected in city-treated water, according to Liz Coleman, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Public Health division of Washington State’s Department of Health, quoted in the Seattle Times’ reporting. Merely ingesting the thing will not lead to health problems, but in rare cases (usually instances involving people with weakened immune systems, or those who are young or old), the organisms can infect a host through skin breakage or via the respiratory system. If they infect the central nervous system, they “ingest bits and pieces of host tissue [and produce] enzymes that degrade the tissue.” Nasal irrigation involves rinsing one’s sinus cavity with distilled or sterile water (or water that has been filtered to remove potentially infectious organisms), and one such method of water delivery is a Neti pot. The need for sterility is explicitly stated due to the (extremely small) risk posed by another amoeba, Naegleria fowleri, and it is the reason the FDA requires (in the absence of sterile water) a specific kind of filter capable of removing the amoeba and similarly-sized organisms from water before it is pushed through fragile sinus tissue. While the authors of this case report could not state with absolute certainty that the Neti pot was to blame, it is far and away the most likely explanation given the fact that the patient had been rinsing her sinuses with tap water regularly for an extended period of time: While it is recommended that only sterile water or saline be used … the patient used tap water that was filtered with a Brita Water Purifier … Improper nasal irrigation has been reported as a method of infection for the comparably insidious amoeba, N. fowleri. This precedent led us to suspect the same route of entry for the Balamuthia amoeba in our case. Although this hypothesis is consistent with the patient’s history and ultimate diagnosis, the water supply to the patient’s home was not tested, hence our ability to definitively trace the patient’s infection to improper nasal lavage is limited. Other routes of exposure are possible, according to a 2013 review of amoebic infections: Epidemiology of Balamuthia GAE is not well understood. However, based on several case reports it can be hypothesized that gardening, playing with dirt, or exposure to dust while motorcycling may play significant roles in the acquisition of Balamuthia infection. It has been shown that Balamuthia is found in the soil and dust in air and the route of infection is probably via inhalation of Balamuthia either present in soil or carried by the wind or the amebae entering the body through a cut or puncture. Once it gains entry into the body it is likely to spread hematogenously to the brain. Additionally, there is some indication that water may serve as a vehicle for acquiring the infection. Although the water used in the Neti pot likely caused this infection, Dr. Cynthia Maree, a co-author of the report and a member of the team that treated the woman in question, told the Seattle Times that “the risk of infection to the brain is extremely low,” adding that “people who use neti pots or other nasal-irrigation devices can nearly eliminate [that risk] by following directions printed on the devices, including using only saline or sterilized water.”
Example Output: A woman who rinsed her nasal passages using a neti pot filled with tap water contracted a fatal “brain-eating” amoeba infection.

Example Input: "There was no estimate of the costs associated with obtaining the amounts of vitamin D mentioned in the story. The story did an adequate job quantifying the benefits found in the meta-analysis:  ""Over an average of nearly six years, those who took vitamin D had a 7 percent lower risk of death from all causes than those who did not. Some scientists say more years of study would give better clues as to how large a role vitamin D plays in decreasing mortality. Others point out that while there was a statistically significant 7 percent drop in mortality in Autier’s analysis, because of the size of the study that only accounted for a difference of 117 people who died in the control groups as compared with those who took vitamin D supplements."" The story made it appear as though any form of vitamin D were safe to consume in whatever dosage a reader might envisage and this is misleading. It mentioned ""there is little evidence of vitamin D toxicity at levels under 10,000 IU a day"", and while rare, there are cases of lethal doses of vitamin D that have been documented. The story could have explained that there are definite harms of excess vitamin D. The story did an adequate job explaining the 18-study meta-analysis. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. The story included comments from several researchers involved with investigating the benefits of vitamin D who were not connected to the authors of the highlighted study. The story covered the various means for obtaining sufficient levels of vitamin D (food, sunshine, functional foods, and supplements). It could have explained that the application of high SPF value creams and lotions blocks the body’s ability to convert sunlight into circulating vitamin D. The story mentioned that commercially available vitamin D supplements were available, listed some food sources rich in vitamin D, as well as other foods which are fortified with the vitamin. The story was clear that it was reporting on the results of a recently published meta-analysis of previously published data. Does not appear to rely on a press release."
Example Output:
Vitamin D might be factor in longer life

