TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: Ravalli County District Judge Jennifer Lint signed a temporary restraining order Friday that prohibits Gov. Steve Bullock and state health officials from enforcing emergency rules on flavored vaping products. They were set to take effect Tuesday. Lint was acting in response to a lawsuit filed Thursday by three vape shops and an industry group. They claim the 120-day ban is an overly restrictive reaction to a national outbreak of vaping-related illnesses and deaths they say is caused by illegal black-market products. Bullock’s press secretary, Erin Loranger, told the Ravalli Republic that officials are reviewing the judge’s ruling. The lawsuit was brought by the Montana Smoke Free Association, Freedom Vapes, Liberty Smoke and uBlaze Vapor said the ban could force more than 20 Montana businesses to close. The business owners said the pulmonary illnesses could be the result of the “illicit addition” of THC or marijuana products into legal vaping products. THC and marijuana are not included as ingredients in any of the products sold by the businesses involved in the lawsuit, according to the plaintiffs. The ban would not only harm the businesses, but also people who use e-cigarettes to quit tobacco products, the lawsuit said. In an affidavit filed in the lawsuit, Freedom Vapes owner Ron Marshall said that flavored vape juices comprise 95% of the products sold in his three stores and his business would not be able to survive without them. On Friday, he said that the lawsuit was about freedom and liberty. “If the governor can take away those liberties with a swipe of a pen, then what’s next? If it’s us today, who will it be tomorrow?” he said. Lint scheduled an Oct. 30 hearing to consider arguments about the future of the temporary ban. ___ Information from: Ravalli Republic , http://www.ravallirepublic.com Claim: Montana judge halts temporary flavored vaping ban.

SOLUTION: A temporary ban on the sale of flavored electronic cigarettes due to take effect next week in Montana has been blocked for now by a judge.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Costs are mentioned reasonably early in the story, and with specificity. This was good to see. Benefits of these tests are touted, but not quantified. An officer of the National Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance, an advocacy group, testifies that the outcomes of women who have surgery from a gynecologic oncologist “are much better.” But we don’t know what that means. Is it longer survival? Later the story explains that combining the two blood tests with assessment by a clinician “better determined the patients who should be referred to a [gynecological oncologist], identifying well over 90 percent of the women who actually had cancer.”  (Note that this statistic reflects only referral to a gyn-onc, not patient survival.) But how does that compare to the standard assessment tools? A 2016 study described as publication “of the first clinical utility data” demonstrating that use of OVA1 resulted in referral of ovarian patients to gynecologic oncologists offers similar outcomes but is not mentioned in the story. We’re told that experts fear that these tests could lead to unnecessary surgery or delayed diagnosis, and that’s sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story could have delved into a bit more of the specifics: What is the evidence for these concerns? What are the false positive and false negative rates? These details are useful because the point of the story is that clinicians are not using these tests to try to improve outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. Are the possible debits–or uncertainties driven by lack of clinical data–contributing to these decisions? There isn’t sufficient information on the evidence behind these tests. The FDA has approved ROMA and OVA1 for use, but the studies that led to that decision are not discussed. Nor is there sufficient discussion of why the physician groups that write guidelines haven’t endorsed the tests. Their concerns are raised, but the evidence is not presented or analyzed. A late diagnosis of ovarian cancer is way too common, and the outcome is grim. At the same time, the anecdotes seem to highlight the sad aspect of the disease without necessarily providing a relevant case in which the tests described would have helped (any more than a basic blood test would have). The companies responsible for developing and marketing these two tests are front and center in this story, with scientists affiliated with the companies clearly identified. At least two sources in the story—one of them a scientist affiliated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network—appear to be independent of the companies. The story makes it clear that no effective early detection screening test exists. Existing strategies—the CA125 blood test and vaginal ultrasound—are mentioned and then discounted, in part via a personal narrative of a young woman who received a late diagnosis of cancer. While data-driven specifics aren’t included on why standard methods aren’t sufficient, this is enough to rate Satisfactory. A direct comparison of survival stemming from existing diagnostic tests relative to survival stemming from ROMA and OVA1 would have strengthened the story. If those numbers aren’t available, that should have been pointed out. The story makes it clear that the two blood tests have been available since 2009. The story mentions that the tests are combinations of existing tests with a “proprietary” formula (essentially a risk prediction tool) to translate the results to likelihood of cancer. But, the article should have talked about whether the tests, other than CA-125, have been used before. This appears to be an enterprise story, and does not rely on a news release. Claim: Ovarian cancer blood tests: Available, not widely used

SOLUTION: This is a story about the apparent underuse of two blood tests—ROMA and OVA1—that are FDA approved to help clinicians decide whether surgery to investigate abnormal growths should be performed by a gynecologic oncologist (“gyn-onc”) trained to remove malignant ovarian cancer, rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist or a general surgeon. The gist of the story is that the tests have not been widely adopted in the ensuing years, “largely because they haven’t been recommended by the physician groups that write the care guidelines.” The story hit on a lot of important notes–it told readers the cost of these tests, and it included comments from independent sources. What is not clear is the extent to which clinical evidence supports the increased use of the two tests. We’re told they accurately picked up about 90 percent of cancer cases. But we’re not told how that compares to standard methods of detection. As the story notes, surviving ovarian cancer is an uphill battle–it is often a deadly disease caught too late. Any procedure that increases the probability of survival is worth careful consideration.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "Although this is a very preliminary study, some mention of costs should have been included, even if simply to note that the cost of potential treatments is unknown at the present time. The published study itself does not quantify benefits clearly , perhaps understandable given that it is a laboratory study, not a clinical one. But we give the story a satisfactory rating for doing a reasonable job of putting the study results into context. The brevity of the response and the inconsistent findings across individuals were noted appropriately in the story. While harms are not quantified in the published study itself, this story does well to emphaszie the importance — and current lack — of safety data for an alluded-to use of oxytocin in children with autism. We do know a good deal about the toxicity of oxytocin when given to women to induce labor and for a few hours. In addititon to possible severe allergic reactions, water intoxication is an important side effect. We give the story kudos for noting several limitations in this research, including the wide variations in individual responses and a lack of evidence that the strategy ""would be effective at all"" in children or young adults. The author also notes a lack of long-term safety data, and she describes  challenges in translating the delivery method to a real-world application. We would have liked to have seen a bit more characterization of the preliminary nature of this laboratory study and its very small sample. The story does not resort to disease-mongering. The story cites several independent sources and provides several quotes for balance. The study authors themselves identified no conflicts of interest. The story does discuss the treatment of autism and that no drug therapies are currently available for the social dysfunction observed in people with Asperger syndrome and other forms of autism. The story is clear that the strategy used in this laboratory study is uNPRoven in the real world, particularly in children and young adults. They even note the issues in translating the delivery method to clinical practice. The article notes that there have been prior studies that also demonstrated an effect of oxytocin in people with autism. The story does not appear to rely on a news release." Claim: ‘Bonding’ Hormone Might Help Some With Autism

SOLUTION:
Overall this 633-word story captures the essence of the study and places the test results into a reasonable context. This small study supports the hypothesis that oxytocin is involved in the social behaviors associated with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders, and it suggests a potential therapeutic role for oxytocin in people with such disorders.