Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Q: Paragraph: We give the story credit for at least citing a $30,000 cost for the “surgeries” but wish it had explained what that included and what it might not. Surgery to change the battery every two years certainly adds to cost. Undoubtedly patients require more intensive expensive followup and perhaps specialized checks to ensure the device is working. With broad strokes across discussion of three different uses for three different conditions, the story did an adequate job quantifiying benefits. As stated in the “Evidence” criterion above, this is where a control group and reporting response rates for treated versus control groups would be very informative. Instead, we only get a qualitative description of benefits which is useful but which might leave careful readers asking for more. This is one area where the story could have been improved. There was no detailed discussion of what can go wrong with deep brain stimulation. There was a brief mention of “if” the electrodes cause neurological side effects. But how often does that happen? And the story noted that the surgery does “sometimes” cause dangerous brain bleeding or infections. How often is “sometimes”? At a very high, overview level, the story explained the current state of the evidence. But more information would have been better. Current evidence for depression/OCD is based on case series. These studies don’t have a control group, making the results more subject to bias. No disease mongering of any of the conditions discussed. The story was repeatedly clear about deep brain stimulation being used when standard medications or behavior therapy had not worked. But it would be helpful to give estimates of the proportion of patients with depression or OCD who aren’t helped by available treatments. Several sources were cited. Dr. Mayberg’s connection to St. Jude Medical was mentioned. The story could have mentioned that Dr. Okun’s center and Dr. Greenberg have received funding from Medtronic. Greenberg’s current funding from the National Institute of Mental Health was noted. We think the sourcing and disclosure was adequate. A strong point of the story was that it repeatedly provided the context for the use of deep brain stimulation — “when standard medications fail…worst-case patients…doesn’t mean patients can abandon traditional therapy…people with intractable (problems)…(people who) failed behavior therapy.” This story already attempted to accomplish a lot, but to be complete, it could have offered explicit description of currently approved options: antidepressant medications (multiple classes); psychotherapy (multiple options); combinations of medications or medications and therapy; transcranial magnetic stimulation (limited availabilty), vagal nerve stimulation, ECT – and estimate of the proportion of patients who fail these treatments. Nonethless, we feel it met the criteria for a satisfactory score. The story states that 70,000 have had deep brian stimulation for Parkinson’s or other movement disorders, and that studies are underway on at least 60 people with intractable obsessive-compulsive disorder and 100 with severe depression. The experimental nature of these approaches is clear from the story. A nice touch would be to give a link to clinicaltrials.gov to allow readers the option of looking up more information on the studies in progress and finding out if recruitment is open and how to access the study. The story did a good job putting the new uses of deep brain stimulation into the context of other research and other therapeutic approaches. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Trying brain pacemakers to zap psychiatric disease

A: We especially appreciate the lack of hype in this story. The reporter clearly worked hard to stick to the evidence – not merely to promote the potential. About 65-70 percent of patients with major depressive disorder improve substantially with 1 to 2 course of standard treatment (medication, psychotherapy or combinations). Subsequent treatment options have progressively lower rates of treatment response. Therefore, a significant number of people need other treatment options. Deep brain stimulation is an invasive treatment, but one that has shown promise in a small number of patients.
****
Q: Paragraph: "The story includes the cost of this test $1,625 and mentions that insurance companies currently don’t cover the cost of the new genetic test for breast cancer. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. It is not clear how this test improves on these current practice as there was no evidence presented about it. The story appropriately expresses caution when presenting the value of this new test to predict a woman’s lifetime risk of developing cancer. There is a wide range of experts interviewed, all of whom express concern about the current available evidence for the predictive value of this test. Most experts advise against women taking this test, and the American Cancer Society does not promote the test. The story provides appropriate caveats for women who are considering this test. Namely, a lower than average score might suggest a woman could forgo screening. Women with a higher than average risk score could experience unnecessary anxiety and possibly choose treatments they do not need (such as prophylactic mastectomy). The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. Additionally, peer-reviewed studies need to be done to determine the best course of prevention if a woman chooses to take the test and discovers she is at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Because the story raised appropriate questions about the quality of the evidence, we give this a satisfactory score. The story lists the annual incidence of new breast cancers and mortality rate. The story is tempered in reporting about a new genetic test which may or may not be another option for women looking to assess their risk. The story mentions that knowing individual risk may inform a woman’s decision whether to increase surveillance and/or take chemoprevention medication, such as tamoxifen. Several leading breast cancer researchers, a member of the American Cancer Society and a spokesperson for the FDA are interviewed for this story. These interviewees do not have a vested interest in this test–unlike Decode’s chief executive, who is also interviewed, mainly promoting his company’s product. Researchers help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered at higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However, the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer  mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. The test discussed in this story has not been studied long enough, nor have results of company studies been subjected to an external review. The focus of the story is a new, widely available genetic test. The story says that any doctor can order this test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there are questions about the validity of tests that have not been subjected to external review. The story notes that there are other genetic tests, but this is one of the first for breast cancer for women who do not carry the BRCA1/2 gene. The story does not mention that there are several other risk calculators to estimate a women’s risk. The story does not rely on the Decode Genetics press release. There is independent reporting and a balanced review of this new genetic test." Claim: Firm says test judges risk for common breast cancers

A: "The focus of the story is a newly available genetic test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there is concern about the validity of such tests that have not been subjected to external review. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However,the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. It is not clear how the new genetic test improves on this current practice, as there was no evidence presented. Researchers and clinicians interviewed help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts."
****
Q: Paragraph: Bottles of Corona beer speed past a worker in the bottling line of Mexico City's Modelo brewery, May 19, 2004. REUTERS/Andrew Winning He may be in for worse than a surprise: a nasty skin reaction that one doctor is calling “Mexican beer dermatitis.”   A substance in lime juice, if left on the skin in the sun, can cause the skin to become discolored, as if by poison ivy or a jellyfish sting — and the marks can last for months, reports Scott Flugman in the Archives of Dermatology. Mexican beers, particularly Corona, are typically served with a lime slice wedged in the top of the bottle. The drinker shoves the lime into the bottle and holds his or her thumb over the bottle’s mouth while turning the bottle over to mix in the juice. But if the drinker is not careful, the beer’s carbonation can spray lime juice and beer all over his or her skin — “especially in a patient who is shirtless by a beach or pool,” wrote Flugman, a dermatologist in New York. The resulting reaction is due to a substance called psoralen, used to make the skin more sensitive to a wavelength of ultraviolet light, UV-A, used to treat certain skin conditions. Lemons contain psoralens too, but not as strong. “It’s just a cosmetic issue,” Flugman told Reuters Health, though he said the discoloration — most frequently in people like bartenders who work outdoors with limes — may take an emotional toll. “People are worried that it’s something serious. You might have some brown spots you’re been looking at for a few months,” he said. Olive-skinned Caucasians may be especially susceptible. No ties have been shown between the reaction and skin cancer, said Flugman, who added that he sees two or three cases a year. They are often mystified why a dermatologist is asking them if they’ve recently drunk Mexican beer. His advice? “If you do this and you spritz the beer or the lime, just wash it off. Don’t leave it on there and sit out in the sun,” he said. Or, if you are disinclined to get up for a while, “throw a towel over it.” Claim: Hold the lime with Corona, may cause skin reaction.

A:
In a TV advertisement for Corona beer, a woman on a beach, irritated by her companion ogling a bikini-clad blonde, squirts him with the lime sitting atop his beer.
****