Task: Explanation
Input (English): Paragraph: Cost of Plavix is included in the story. The story not only provided good data on benefits, but also a definition of which type of patients benefited. Good, easily-understandable explanation of how the study was done. The opposite of disease mongering, this story explains the study’s questions of preventive benefit from the Plavix-aspirin combination, including one researcher’s quote: “You don’t use this drug for patients without coronary artery disease.” The story includes input from researchers, editorial writer, and from drug maker. However, it is not clear if the story included any input from any independent source not directly tied to the study. Story explains why researchers thought adding clopidogrel to aspirin might be helpful in a broader group of people. Does not appear to have relied on a press release. Claim: Doubt Cited on Aspirin-Blood Thinner Combo
Output (English): This story offers a good overview of the results of a trial that combined the blood thinner Plavix with aspirin to try to prevent heart attacks in people who don’t appear to have heart disease but who have conditions like high blood pressure and high cholesterol. The story describes key outcomes of the study, and includes a clear statement that the results do not change recommendations for patients who seem to benefit from the combination – “people who recently have had heart attacks or a procedure to unclog an artery.” This story stands as a good example of what can be included in a 700-word story.