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: "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."
Solution is here: Some appendicitis cases may not require ’emergency’ surgery
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.

Now, solve this: Costs are not discussed, as this is an investigational procedure. The article provides n values and quantifies the results from the first stage of the study. The potential benefits of the test have to do with its ability to rule out malignancy based on X-ray results; thus, the specificity and sensitivity data are particularly relevant. We wish the paragraph on subjects with stage I disease would have quantified the results. It provides no sensitivity or specificity rates to justify the conclusion of the technique’s potential application in early stage disease. Quantified harms are not as pertinent since this a blood test. However, one could infer indirect harms, the false positives and false negatives, from the data provided. The story is up-front about these results being preliminary and from a conference. Ideally, the story should have further described the preliminary nature of these findings, in a way that would have made sense to a lay audience. The results have not been peer-reviewed, and the technique is only being developed based on these data. In other words, the study didn’t assess a technique, they built one to match the data. The strategy hasn’t been tested in a realistic population.As this report was all about a new diagnostic test, is it particularly important to define the groups clearly and the sensitivity/ specificity (and positive predictive value/ negative predictive value). This is where independent expert assessment of these results would have helped clarify their significance and early status. Regarding SomaDX, mentioned offhand, this evidence and its 90% sensitivity isn’t evaluated at all. At the time of this article, the report hadn’t even been officially released by the company, and not independently vetted. The article does not exaggerate the burden of lung cancer, accurately citing ACS statistics and the enormous importance of the disease. It also does not overstate the problem of false positives. An independent source was cited, a meeting attendant, and the SomaLogic quotes were added for context. The latter were good for illustrating that the Dubinett group is not the only game in town working on this type of blood test. Ideally, the article would have had more independent analysis of the specific results. No independent source was used to assess the SomaLogic employee’s claims of their experimental test’s sensitivity. Although the MedPage Today coverage of the study is aimed at a professional medical audience, it provides a good example of some of the critical points outside sources can provide about these type of very early results. Although the article does not identify conflicts of interest, from the MedPage Today article it’s not clear that the investigators disclosed any conflicts of interest in their abstract.
Solution:
Blood Test for Lung Cancer in the Works