Task: Explanation
Input (English): Paragraph: Since this story doesn’t make claims about efficacy, costs don’t seem applicable. We give this story a satisfactory score, but the story could have helped readers understand why measuring surrogate markers such as homocysteine levels can be different than tracking true outcomes such as heart attack or stroke. Here, the surrogate endpoint (homocysteine levels) “improved,” but the real endpoint – heart attack and stroke – did not. There is no discussion of any harms associated with consumption of vitamin B supplements, although such harms would occur from vitamin B intake unlike that studied, so this gets a satisfactory grade. Two of the three studies referred to in the journal article are detailed; a brief reference is given for the third. In addition to the discussion of the studies, a quote was pulled from an editorial in the journal that published the studies. No other treatment options for lowering risk of heart attacks or strokes are mentioned. It’s clear from the story that B vitamins have been in use for some time by many people for these purposes. It’s clear from the story that B vitamins have been in use for some time by many people for these purposes. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Claim: Study: Heart attacks not cut by B vitamins
Output (English): This story reports on several recent studies that fail to find benefit in terms of heart attack and stroke risk from the consumption of B vitamins by people with established vascular disease. Though the article was factually correct, it missed a golden opportunity to educate consumers about the difference between a disease outcome and a surrogate marker of the disease. In other words, homocysteine levels may be lowered by vitamin B use, but that may not make any difference on the outcome you really care about – risk of heart attack or stroke.