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: Sometime before Oct. 1, the state will start using electronic benefits transfer cards that will allow recipients on the Women, Infants and Children program to buy food at grocery stores and pharmacies Most states are already doing that, and Mississippi is among the few still using a warehouse distribution system, the Commercial Dispatch  reported. WIC provides “nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating including breastfeeding promotion and support, and referrals to health care” to low-income pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding women, infants and children up to age 5 who are considered to be at nutritional risk, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The program serves almost half of all infants born in the United States. WIC foods include “infant cereal, iron-fortified adult cereal, vitamin C-rich fruit or vegetable juice, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, dried and canned beans/peas, and canned fish.” Katie Peterson, a mother of two young children, picked up packages of food recently at the WIC warehouse in Oktibbeha County. “I don’t have a lot of free time, so coming down here can be kind of difficult at times,” Peterson said. “They often run out of stuff too, so when I’m here, I’ll have to skip a couple things that are on my list.” Peterson said picking up WIC-approved food at a grocery store “would be wonderful.” Each state’s health department operates the WIC program, with funding and guidelines from the USDA. The federal agency decided all 50 states must start using electronic cards for WIC recipients by Oct. 1. Each county in Mississippi has at least one WIC warehouse. Liz Sharlot, spokeswoman for the Mississippi State Department of Health, said there will be no need for WIC warehouses once the cards are in place. Oktibbeha County resident Mariam Reynolds, a mother of three, said she got WIC products from grocery stores when she lived in Birmingham, Alabama. “You can go to the grocery store any time to get what you need, and you’ve probably got better options,” Reynolds said. Selection and availability were not a problem for Peterson and her family when they lived in Illinois, which administers its WIC program at grocery stores, she said. “If I need milk and eggs, and they don’t have eggs (at the warehouse), I either have to get the milk and skip the eggs or just get nothing at all,” Peterson said. WIC’s transition from warehouses to grocery stores is still in the early stages of searching for and authorizing grocery stores and pharmacies as vendors, so nothing is final yet, but “the wheels are in motion,” Sharlot said. Claim: Mississippi will phase out warehouses for nutrition program.

Output: Mississippi will close distribution centers for a federal nutrition program in the coming year and will move to a system that could be simpler to use.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: A cataract was removed on Dec. 10 from the left eye of a 3-year-old western lowland gorilla who lives at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, the park announced Monday. The gorilla, named Leslie, was given a muscle blocker to keep her still while a team that included vets along with anesthesiologists and an ophthalmology team from UC San Diego Health removed the cloudy lens and replaced it with an artificial lens that should last for life. The operation was performed at the San Diego Zoo Global’s Paul Harter Veterinary Medical Center. Cataract surgeon Chris Heichel, who led the team and has performed thousands of operations, said it was his first on a gorilla. “Fortunately, the similarities between the anatomy of human and gorilla eyes are great enough to allow us to safely navigate the procedure without complication,” Heichel said in a statement released by the park. “The remainder of the eye appeared to be in excellent health, indicating exceptional vision potential for the rest of Leslie’s life.” Cataracts can occur naturally with aging. But given that Leslie is a youngster, her problem more likely stemmed from an injury, either from a fall while practicing her climbing or from “an overly rambunctious play sessions with other young gorillas in her troop,” the park said. Leslie will need antibiotics and steroids to prevent infection and inflammation, but she is already back with the troop at the park. Claim: California gorilla treated for cataract.

Output: A team of eye experts has operated on an unusual patient — a gorilla.


Input: Consider Input: 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


Output: 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.