Task: Explanation
Input (English): Paragraph: "Although the story mentions the cost of immunosuppressant drugs, the story does not mention the cost of the new transplant technique. Given the preliminary nature of the findings, it is not yet possible to quantify the benefits of the new transplantation technique. The story does not mention any potential harms of the therapy. The story adequately describes the strength of the available evidence. The story describes the studies as ""preliminary"" and brings attention to the very small sample sizes. However, the story could have made less use of such terms as ""groundbreaking"" and ""breakthrough"" to describe the treatment in light of the preliminary nature of the findings. The story does not exaggerate the prevalence or seriousness of kidney disease. The story quotes multiple experts The story mentions immunosuppressants with traditional transplantation as the alternative to the new transplant technique. The story clearly states that the transplant technique is experimental and is only being performed in a handful of medical centers. The story clearly states that the treatment is a new approach. Because the story quotes multiple sources, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information." Claim: Some transplant patients OK without years of drug treatment
Output (English): Acute rejection is a major concern in organ transplantation. Rejection is normally treated and prevented with immune supressing drugs, including steroids, to prevent the body from attacking the foreign organ. However these drugs are associated with significant side effects and harms, especially when taken for long periods of time. This story reports on an interesting new technique of transplantation that involves treating the organ with the donor’s own stem cells to protect the organ from a response by the recipient’s immune system. The story does a great job of describing the novelty and availability of the new technique. It quotes multiple sources, describes the alternatives and does not engage in disease mongering. The story adequately describes the strength of the available evidence by describing the studies as "preliminary" and bringing attention to the very small sample sizes. However, the story could have made less use of such terms as "groundbreaking" and "breakthrough" to describe the treatment in light of the preliminary nature of the findings. Furthermore, the story should have described the costs of the new technique and mentioned the potential harms.