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.

Example Input: Paragraph: Health Ministry spokesman Kianush Jahanpur, speaking on  state television, said the death toll had risen by 92, while the total number of cases of infection reached 77,995. However, a report by the Iranian parliament’s research centre suggested that the coronavirus tolls might be almost twice as many as those announced by the health ministry. “The assessment is that the actual mortality which has not been accounted for is 0.8 times the official figures. The number of infected cases could be 8 to 10 times the official figures,” the report said. The report said that Iran’s official coronavirus figures were only based on the number of deaths in hospitals and those who had already tested positive for the coronavirus. “To narrow the gap between the officially announced figures and the estimated figures, it is necessary to improve the laboratory capacity of the country,” it said. Iranian health ministry officials have not commented on the report, which was published online. The government is worried that measures to limit public activities could wreck an economy which has already been battered by sanctions. On Saturday, low-risk business activities resumed across the country, including many shops, factories and workshops, with the exception of Tehran. They will re-open in the capital from Saturday. Health experts have criticised easing of the limitations, warning about the new wave of the disease. Deputy Health Minister Iraj Harirchi called on people to stay at home, saying: “We are expecting the epidemic to pick up in autumn”, state TV reported. On social media, Iranians posted pictures of busy streets, packed branches of banks and crowded buses in Tehran and other cities. Iran is the Middle Eastern country worst-affected by the COVID-19 respiratory disease and has one of the world’s highest death tolls. Claim: Iran coronavirus death toll up as official warns of autumn rise in cases.
Example Output: Iran’s official coronavirus death toll rose to 4,869 on Thursday but a parliamentary report said the actual number could be much higher and a deputy minister warned the infection could spread further in autumn.

Example Input: Paragraph: Cancer patients increasingly are having their care guided by gene tumor boards, a new version of the hospital panels that traditionally decided whether surgery, radiation or chemotherapy would be best. These experts study the patient’s cancer genes and match treatments to mutations that seem to drive the disease. “We dissect the patient’s tumor with what I call the molecular microscope,” said Dr. Razelle Kurzrock, who started a board at the University of California, San Diego, where Cairnes is treated. It’s the kind of care many experts say we should aim for — precision medicine, the right drug for the right person at the right time, guided by genes. There are success stories, but also some failures and many questions: Will gene-guided care improve survival? Does it save money or cost more? What kind of gene testing is best, and who should get it? “I think every patient needs it,” especially if cancer is advanced, said Kurzrock, who consults for some gene-medicine companies. “Most people don’t agree with me — yet. In five years, it may be malpractice not to do genomics.” Few people get precision medicine today, said Dr. Eric Topol, head of the Scripps Translational Science Institute. “The only thing that’s gone mainstream are the words.” HOW IT WORKS NOW If you have a cancer that might be susceptible to a gene-targeting drug, you may be tested for mutations in that gene, such as HER2 for breast cancer. Some breast or prostate cancer patients also might get a multi-gene test to gauge how aggressive treatment should be. Then most patients get usual guideline-based treatments. If there’s no clear choice, or if the disease has spread or comes back, doctors may suggest tumor profiling — comprehensive tests to see what mutations dominate. That’s traditionally been done from a tissue sample, but newer tests that detect tumor DNA in blood — liquid biopsies — are making profiling more common. The tests cost about $6,000 and many insurers consider them experimental and won’t pay. Gene tumor boards analyze what the results suggest about treatment. They focus on oddball cases like a breast cancer mutation in a colon cancer patient, or cancers that have widely spread and are genetically complex. The only options may be experimental drugs or “off-label” treatments — medicines approved for different situations. But as tumor profiling grows, it’s revealing how genetically diverse many tumors are, and that oddball cases are not so rare, said Dr. John Marshall. He heads the virtual tumor board at Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center that also serves cancer centers in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan and Tennessee. “There is a little bit of faith” that testing will show the right treatment, but it’s not a sure thing, said Dr. Lee Schwartzberg, who heads one participating center, the West Cancer Center in Memphis. Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society’s deputy chief medical officer, is optimistic yet wary. Drugs that target BRAF mutations work well for skin cancers called melanomas, but less well for lung or colon cancers. “Just because a mutation occurs it doesn’t mean that drug is going to work in that cancer,” he said. LUCKY CASES When it does, results can be dramatic. Cairnes’ cancer was between her stomach and esophagus, and had spread to her liver, lungs and lymph nodes. Tissue testing found 10 abnormal genes, but on the liquid biopsy only EGFR popped out as a good target. Two drugs aim at that gene but aren’t approved for her type of cancer. A tumor board advised trying both — Erbitux and Tarceva, the drug her husband also had taken. Within two weeks, she quit using pain medicines. After two months, her liver tumor had shrunk roughly by half. There are signs that cancer may remain, but it is under control. She feels well enough to travel and to take care of her granddaughter. “I’m very, very grateful to have a targeted therapy,” Cairnes said. “I cannot expect a better outcome than what we’re seeing right now,” said her doctor, Shumei Kato. WHAT STUDIES SHOW But is gene-guided treatment better than usual care? French doctors did the first big test, with disappointing results. About 200 patients with advanced cancer were given whatever their doctors thought best or off-label drugs based on tumor profiling. Survival was similar — about two months. Another French study, reported in June, was slightly more encouraging on survival but exposed another problem: No drugs exist for many gene flaws. Tests found treatable mutations in half of the 2,000 participants and only 143 got what a tumor board suggested. Some doctors worry that tumor boards’ recommending off-label treatments diverts patients from research that would benefit all cancer patients. For example, the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s TAPUR study tests off-label drugs and shares results with their makers and federal regulators. LETTING PATIENTS CHOOSE Ann Meffert, who lives on a dairy farm in Waunakee, Wisconsin, endured multiple standard treatments that didn’t defeat her bile duct cancer. “She was going to be referred to hospice; there was not much we could do,” said Dr. Nataliya Uboha, who took the case to a tumor board at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The panel gave several options, including off-label treatment, and Meffert chose a study that matches patients to gene-targeting therapies and started on an experimental one last October. “Two weeks in, I started feeling better,” she said, and when she saw test results, “I couldn’t believe the difference.” Many lung spots disappeared and the liver tumor shrank 75 percent. She is not cured, though, and doctors are thinking about next steps. And that could involve a fresh look at her tumor genes. ___ Marilynn Marchione can be followed at @MMarchioneAP __ This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Ultra-personal therapy: Gene tumor boards guide cancer care.
Example Output: Doctors were just guessing a decade ago when they gave Alison Cairnes’ husband a new drug they hoped would shrink his lung tumors. Now she takes it, but the choice was no guesswork. Sophisticated gene tests suggested it would fight her gastric cancer, and they were right.

Example Input: Paragraph: Given the nature of the study we don’t think that this issue is relevant. The story used only relative risk numbers to quantify the benefit. This is inadequate, as we explain in Reporting the findings: Absolute vs relative risk. Also, the story confused association with causation, i.e., “researchers in the U.K. found that weekend exercise appears to be just as effective at preventing heart disease and cancer as exercise done more frequently.” The title of the paper suggests otherwise: “Association of Weekend Warrior and other Leisure Time Activity Patterns with Risk of All Cause Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer Mortality.” See more on the importance of not overstating observational findings. The story does a good job highlighting some of the potential harms associated with vigorous physical activity: “However, experts caution that it is possible to overdo it”  and “more exercise than two and a half hours a week can actually be unhelpful and even harmful.” An expert in the field not associated with the study provides a bit of common sense to the discussion; “There are risks that come with a weekend warrior exercise schedule, especially for people who aren’t used to being active. “I would be more concerned about what’s happening at the point of exercise—not the long-term benefits,” says Dr. Howard Andrew Selinger, chair of family medicine at Quinnipiac University. The story provides adequate information about the study design, the populations involved and some of the limitations of the study design. However, it left out important limitation: The inactive population studied was 7 years older, had more current smokers, and suffered more from unspecified “long standing illness” than the participants who were active. No evidence of disease mongering here. The story does provide some precautionary words from an independent expert in the field related to the risks associated with strenuous exercise. We would have liked to have seen an expert in the field provide comments on the study, the inherent limitations and on the conclusions drawn. Although the focus of the story was the “weekend warrior,” several comments were included suggesting alternative exercise strategies, including: “This could be something as simple as a brisk walk or other low-impact options for vigorous exercise about 20 minutes a day. “In theory, someone who did one bout of 150 minutes of moderate exercise is a weekend warrior,” says O’Donovan. This study shows that it doesn’t matter how you decide to split up the recommended weekly amount of exercise. You just need to do it.” We think that the ability to exercise is generally available, so this is N/A. The story did not establish what’s novel, unlike what we saw in our review of The Guardian’s story. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: ‘WEEKEND WARRIOR’ WORKOUTS ARE BENEFICIAL AS JUST 20 MINUTES OF EXERCISE A DAY
Example Output:
This story highlights the findings of a large, longitudinal study conducted in England and Scotland. However, “large” doesn’t mean “conclusive,” which this story seems to indicate. As we saw in our review of The Guardian’s take on the same study, the story confuses association with causation (see more in Why This Matters and Quantified Benefits, below) and didn’t adequately provide a sense of the size of the potential benefits. If getting a lot of activity is only plausible on the weekends, and research shows it’s useful at reducing early death risk, then that’s perhaps newsworthy. However, the findings should not be overstated as conclusive, which was done in this story. Researchers saw an association with physical activity and reduced risk of death when looking at data–they did not prove it’s a direct cause-and-effect relationship by assigning people to different types of exercise and then tracking what happens. This should have been made clearer.