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: "As the drug reported on is currently not available a precise cost may not yet be known. However – while not providing a precise cost of this treatment, the story indicated that it is likely to cost more than the currently approved and available clopidogrel especially in 2011 when it will be off patent. The story described the benefits of treatment with ticagrelor in terms of the absolute reduction in risk of the composite endpoint of heart attack, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease as well as the relative risk reduction. The story mentioned the disadvantage that this medication required pills to be taken twice a day (as opposed to the once a day dosing with the currently available medications). It also mentioned that this drug had the potential for resulting in shortness of breath and also that the results of the medication wore off faster than the currently available medication. It could have provided readers with some explanation about why this has the potential to be a problem. Although it included a quote from a doctor indicating that this drug would likely become ""the new standard of care,"" the story did not adequately highlight the new side effects seen with this new treatment to help readers understand that it may not be an appropriate treatment option for all individuals with acute coronary syndrome. Lastly and perhaps most importantly –  the story included the statement ""There was no increase in the risk of dangerous bleeding associated with the new drug."" This statement is misleading as the study reported on found that outside of bleeding related to coronary-artery bypass grafting, ticagrelor was associated with higher rates of major bleeding (4.5% versus 3.8). Nonetheless, overall, the story meets the standard for discussing harms. The story included sufficient information for readers to appreciate that the study involved a large number of patients and it described the main comparison in absolute terms. It could have mentioned that this was a phase III clinical trial designed to examine both the drug’s safety and efficacy. It also could have discussed how the result of the current study differs from the previous large, phase III clinical trials that have been conducted. While mentioning that acute coronary syndrome results in the hospitalization of more than 1.3 million Americans per year, the story did not engage in overt disease mongering. There was only one clinician quoted with respect to the utility of the medication ticagrelor. The story should have included other perspectives. The story mentioned that there were other medications that prevent platelets from forming clumps, mentioning the two prescription medications, clopdogrel and pasugrel by name. The part of the story on the treatment of acute coronary syndrome using the drug ticagrelor ended with a clear sentence indicating that the company is hoping to have FDA approval for this drug by the end of the year and have it commercially available for consumers by early 2010. Placing it here means it could be missed by readers. Further what a company ‘hopes’ may not translate to the drug being available on the timetable outlined. However – a careful read of this story would results in correctly understanding that this drug is currently not FDA approved for sale. The story was about a new medication which is not yet available. does not appear to rely on a press release"
A:
Two new blood thinners better than Plavix and warfarin, studies say