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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: We’ll give the story a “N/A” in this category since it makes clear early on that this research is in the earliest of stages, done in an animal model, and says clearly that clinical trials are a future hope. This is way too early to consider costs which, we assume, would be substantial. The story says the stem cell intervention extended the rodents’ lives “by 10-15% compared to untreated animals.”  At another point, it said, “the mice lived longer than controls, typically several months more, an increase of about 15%.” The story makes no mention of the potential harms that might arise from this approach. Since this has never been tested in humans, we have no idea what they risks are. The story needed to point this out. Theoretically, the stem cells would have to be delivered into human brains via injections, which would make the intervention incredibly risky and possibly a non-starter. In the original paper, the stem cells were injected into the hypothalamus of the mice using viruses as “vectors.” The researchers used lentiviruses, which are used often as vectors for research, but can be deadly in humans. Some discussion of this hurdle also was warranted. The story does a good job at explaining various aspects of the research and depicting the stages through which the research team drew its conclusions. It also is up front about this being animal research, so far untried in humans at even the earliest stages of clinical trials. Of note, the original paper mentions that this study was conducted in very few mice (total of about 20) and only in male mice. That detail would have been useful to include. One thing we wanted to point out that was problematic: The story said “if a similar extension was achieved in humans, a person with a life expectancy of 80 years could live to 92.” We have no idea how this may impact humans; the evidence doesn’t support that kind of speculation. The story doesn’t appear to commit disease mongering, though it could have pointed out that aging in and of itself is not a disease. The story does quote one source unaffiliated with the research and we didn’t detect any conflicts of interest. (The paper itself notes that the authors of the study have no conflicts of interests.) The story is all about basic research that suggests an approach that one day might slow, or possibly reverse, the aging process. There are no real alternatives available now to affect the aging process beyond lifestyle choices that might be healthier and appropriate treatments for illnesses that might otherwise shorten lifespans. It’s clear from the story that this research is preliminary. The story clearly says, “The next step is to create human neural stem cells in the lab for testing.”  It also states that, “Researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York hope to launch clinical trials of the procedure soon, but must first produce supplies of human neural stem cells in the lab which can be implanted into volunteers.” The story heralds this research as a “tour de force” and a “breakthrough.” Yet is it accurate in a news story to call anything done in animals a “breakthrough?” That word implies relevance to humans, and this is far from established in a mouse study. Studies in mice are essential but many of them fail to show similar evidence in humans. Likewise, stem cell research is often seen as a magic bullet for some conditions but there have been few cases where the preliminary hope/hype has born out. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Stem cell brain implants could 'slow ageing and extend life', study shows

Output: This story describes some interesting but very early research into the mechanisms of aging and how they might be altered. The story made it clear that this was mouse-level research and has several hurdles to go before it’s ever tested in people. One weak point for the story was how the story assumed there might be benefits in people yet overlooked the potential risks. Considering this intervention involves inserting stem cells into the brain via the assistance of a viral strain known to be harmful to humans, it’s logical to assume there could be some safety concerns. It also overplayed the novelty here by quoting an expert who called it a “tour de force” and a “breakthrough.”  The desire to somehow combat aging seems inherent in humans. If there is a fairly straightforward “switch” that can control the aging process — and this story suggests so — then this would be a major advance. Yet we are looking at decades before this becomes a rigorous Phase III human trial, let alone a potential intervention in humans. The bottom line is: We are talking about approximately 20 male mice.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The article did not discuss costs. Screening mammograms impose a significant cost on the U.S. health care system and insurers, particularly Medicare. The story detailed the relative harms of earlier mammograms, but did not translate those percentages into absolute numbers. For instance, women who were diagnosed with breast cancer 25 months or more after their last mammogram were “50 percent more likely” to need chemotherapy, “32 percent more likely” to need mastectomy, and “66 percent more likely” to need lymph nodes removed. However, relative risk can be misleading, sometimes inflating numbers to sound scarier than when absolute numbers are used. Also, we don’t know what kind of risk these women had at baseline, so it’s hard to know if they were higher risk. The story made no mention of the harms of earlier or more frequent screening, which have been documented time and time again. More screening can mean more false positives or more finding of breast changes that lead to more testing, such as biopsies, more costs, and more worry. The story did make clear some of the weaknesses of the study: The study found an association but did not prove causality and the study population was limited to a single health care institution. The story also mentions that the findings were presented at a meeting, which means they have not undergone peer-review. The story does not directly engage in fear-mongering. However, some of the quotes advocating for earlier and more frequent screening play into a scenario that breast cancer is lurking in every woman. A discussion of what a woman’s average lifetime risk is would have been helpful. The story quotes the study author and an outside source. The story makes clear that different advisory groups have differing guidelines for what age to start getting mammograms (40 or 50 years old). It would have been nice if the story had included examples of what makes someone higher risk or not (personal cancer history, family history, history of radiation), but we think this was satisfactory. We believe that mammograms are well-known to be widely available. And the earlier and more frequent screening described here is not earlier or more frequent than what many guidelines recommend, so would not be expected to be denied by health insurers. The story makes clear the distinctive aspects of this study —using avoidance of more aggressive treatment regimens as a deciding factor, as opposed to the more extreme avoidance of cancer death. The story goes beyond what was contained in a news release on the presentation at the American Society of Breast Surgeons annual meeting. Claim: Earlier Mammograms May Mean Less Need for Aggressive Treatments

Output: This HealthDay news story reports on findings among women diagnosed with breast cancer: those who had longer intervals between mammograms end up getting more aggressive treatments, including chemotherapy and surgery. The story would have been stronger had it described the findings using absolute rather than relative numbers. But, we were glad to see an independent source offer some reservations about the small observational study raised. A final note — the image accompanying the story was laughably unrealistic. Mammograms are the primary screening method for detecting breast cancer. However, when to start getting mammograms and how often to get screened have been subjects of controversy for the past decade. That’s because the data on how to balance risk of developing breast cancer and the risk of harms from screening (unnecessary tests and procedures) are interpreted differently by doctors and other experts. A story that adds new data to the field and that might tip current guidelines one way or the other is newsworthy.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: When researchers compared brain scans of women before and after pregnancy, they spotted some differences in 11 locations. They also found hints that the alterations help women prepare for motherhood. For example, they might help a mother understand the needs of her infant, Elseline Hoekzema, a study author at Leiden University in the Netherlands, explained via email. The women were also given memory tests, and they showed no signs of decline. Hoekzema, a neuroscientist, began working on the study while at the Autonomous University of Barcelona in Spain. She and colleagues present the results in a paper released Monday by the journal Nature Neuroscience. The study includes data on 25 Spanish women scanned before and after their first pregnancies, along with 20 women who didn’t get pregnant during the study. The brain changes in the pregnancy group emerged from comparisons of those two groups. The results were consistent: A computer program could tell which women had gotten pregnant just by looking at results of the MRI scans. And the changes, first documented an average of 10 weeks after giving birth, were mostly still present two years after childbirth. That’s based on follow-up with 11 study participants. Further work showed they’re a motherhood thing: No brain changes were seen in first-time fathers. Based on prior research findings, the researchers think the brain changes happened during pregnancy rather than after childbirth. What’s going on? Hoekzema and colleagues think the differences result from sex hormones that flood the brain of a pregnant woman. In the 11 places, the MRI data indicate reductions in volume of the brain’s gray matter, but it’s not clear what that means. For example, it could reflect loss of brain cells or a pruning of the places where brain cells communicate, called synapses. Losing some synapses is not necessarily a bad thing. It happens during a hormonal surge in adolescence, producing more specialized and efficient brain circuits. The researchers suspect that could be happening in the pregnant women. Some study results hint that such upgrades may prepare a woman for motherhood. One analysis linked brain changes to how strongly a woman felt emotionally attached to her infant. And when women viewed pictures of their babies, several brain regions that reacted the most were ones that showed pregnancy-related change. In addition, the affected brain areas overlapped with circuitry that’s involved in figuring out what another person is thinking and feeling. That’s a handy ability for a mother tending to an infant. The idea of synapses being pruned in pregnancy makes a lot of sense, commented Bruce McEwen of Rockefeller University in New York, who studies hormonal effects on the brain but didn’t participate in what he called a terrific study. “The brain is being shaped all the time,” he said, and “sex hormones are part of the whole orchestra of processes that change the brain structurally.” ___ Follow Malcolm Ritter at http://twitter.com/malcolmritter His recent work can be found at http://bigstory.ap.org/content/malcolm-ritter Claim: Brain changes seen in pregnancy, may help preparing for baby.


Output: Pregnancy affects not only a woman’s body: It changes parts of her brain too, a new study says.