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.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The story mentions that the Internet-based program is a “low-cost” option for treating insomnia; however, nothing more specific regarding cost is provided. It is presumed that the site will be proprietary; if so, what are the expected usage fees? The story states that compared to the control group, the treatment group woke up fewer times, spent fewer minutes awake, and had an improved score; however, the reader is not given any quantitative data or context to determine if these improvements are really meaningful in a person’s life. The story does not mention any possible harms that may be associated with managing insomnia via an Internet-based program. For example, might people develop worsening insomnia because of reinforcement of bad habits? A comment regarding the lack of identifiable harms would have been sufficient. The story accurately described the methodology and the participants; although this could have been further improved by providing more information about the control group, namely, that they did receive any type of treatment for insomnia. Additionally, the story effectively conveyed that this was a small study with a fairly homogenous population. This story does not directly address the prevalence of insomnia, but the overall tone does not suggest disease-mongering. This story includes comments from two independent experts, as well as a study co-author. The writer also mentions that the study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. This story includes information on the benefits of cognitive behavioral therapy and working with a therapist for treating insomnia and briefly mentions sleep medications. The story states that this Internet-based program “could one day” be an option for treating insomnia, which suggests that it is not yet ready for prime time. The story conveyed that this is a novel treatment modality for insomnia. The story does not appear to rely on a press release and quotes multiple sources that appear to be from interviews. Claim: Internet-based therapy shows promise for insomnia

Ex Output:
This was a generally well written and balanced story about a small exploratory study on a possible new therapy for insomnia. The story effectively describes the methodology and patient population and includes expert commentary from independent sources. The story also appropriately cautions that larger studies with a more diverse patient population are warranted to verify the results and determine their generalizability. While the story meets many of our criteria, it would have been greatly improved by providing the reader with quantitative data and some context to help determine if the results translated to any real, meaningful benefit in peoples’ lives. For example, information on the Insomnia Severity Index, which was used to measure efficacy of the Internet-based program, would have been helpful. A brief exploration of cost, and of any potential harms (or lack of), would also have substantially strengthened the piece.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Dr. Chris Baumert, a family physician at RiverStone Health, told the Billings Gazette there’s been a steep increase in the number of cases of syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has labeled the threat of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea one of the nation’s most urgent public health threats. The rate of gonorrhea cases in the United States has increased 75.2 percent since the historic low in 2009. Montana officials are projecting more than 1,000 cases of gonorrhea in the state this year, compared to 867 in 2017. ___ Information from: The Billings Gazette, http://www.billingsgazette.com Claim: STD cases increase in Montana.

Ex Output:
Health officials say cases of sexually transmitted diseases have increased in Montana.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for again leaning on an independent expert who says the technology is likely prohibitively expensive. While no dollar estimate is given, we think this is good enough for now. As with the harms, the story does quantify the benefits in one way. It says, “It could help avoid up to 98% of these screening procedures, according to the study, which appears in BMJ.” It also says, “The new study included 753 pregnant women who were at high risk for having a child with Down syndrome. Of these, 86 women were determined to be pregnant with a child with Down syndrome.” The story does quantify potential harms in one way by noting, “There were no false-negative results with the new test.” We wish the story also spoke about false positives. False positives are certainly part of the stress and harms from any screening test that need to be considered. In this case, it appears the false positives were low but not negligible. The story adequately describes the study design. The story does avoid disease monitoring, but we wish it had included some of the data from the paper about the frequency of Down syndrome and even some of the other disorders. The LA Times blog piece managed to do this in much less space. The story provides a wealth of outside experts who provide great commentary and context about the study’s findings. We wish more stories about screenings had quotes like these: “In a year or two, this test may be available, but it won’t replace existing technologies, it will nudge its way into our armamentarium of available methodologies,” says Mark I. Evans, MD,  director of Comprehensive Genetics in New York City, and an obstetrician/gynecologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, also in New York City. “The bad news is that prenatal diagnosis is not just about Down syndrome…Down syndrome represents about 50% of what we find, and this new test can help with that, but it may also give women a false sense of reassurance.” The story tries to do a good thing by explaining at the very end that the new test is not a diagnostic test, as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are. Rather, it’s a screening test. The distinction – and the significance of that – could have been made more clearly, but we give the story the benefit of the doubt. The story leans on an independent expert to say that the test is “not ready for prime time….in a year or two, this test may be available.” The story does not establish the test’s novelty, and this is largely because it does not provide the proper context. The study itself says, “In the past 20 years maternal age has been combined with ultrasonographic examination of the fetus and biochemical measurement of various proteins or hormones in the maternal circulation to improve identification of high risk pregnancies. This combined approach of screening can now identify more than 90% of affected fetuses, but there is still a need for invasive testing in 3–5% of the population.” This means that as many as 95% of all women would not need invasive testing to begin with, so this test is only potentially a breakthrough for a small minority of women. BMJ actually makes the novelty question easy to answer by breaking it down this way:  What is already known on this topic: Non-invasive prenatal detection of fetal trisomy 21 is achievable by massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA Its diagnostic performance and practical feasibility in the clinical setting has not been tested on a large scale. What this study adds: Among high risk pregnancies clinically indicated for invasive prenatal diagnosis, non-invasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 can be achieved with the use of multiplexed massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA at 100% sensitivity and 97.9% specificity, giving a 96.6% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value. The sequencing test could be used to rule out trisomy 21 among high risk pregnancies before proceeding to invasive diagnostic testing to reduce the number of cases requiring amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling.” The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Progress Toward Blood Test for Down Syndrome

Ex Output:

This thoroughly reported and carefully written story avoids giving pregnant women false hope of an easier way to detect genetic anomalies while still presenting some compelling information about a new blood test. Pregnancy can be anxiety inducing because of the sheer number of tests already required of women: frequent blood tests, ultrasounds, and amniocentesis in many cases. Add to that the barrage of stories about the way diet and environmental conditions may be affecting in utero development at any given point and one can understand why women might want a simpler solution to find out whether their child might have a genetic disorder. Overall, we think if more stories approached screening the way this story did there would be fewer people demanding the latest over-hyped test from their doctor. This is a “hope for the future” level test that may be inching its way to market. It’s not available now and won’t be in the immediate future – and the story makes that clear.