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: Older adults who underwent a brief course of brain exercises saw improvements in reasoning skills and processing speed that could be detected as long as 10 years after the course ended, according to results from the largest study ever on cognitive training. The findings, published on Monday in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, offer welcome news in the search for ways to keep the mind sharp as 76 million baby boomers in the United States advance into old age. The federally sponsored trial of almost 3,000 older adults, called the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly study, or ACTIVE, looked at how three brain training programs - focusing on processing speed, memory and reasoning ability - affected cognitively normal adults as they aged. People in the study had an average age of 74 when they started the training, which involved 10 to 12 sessions lasting 60 to 75 minutes each. After five years, researchers found, those with the training performed better than their untrained counterparts in all three measures. Although gains in memory seen at the study’s five-year mark appeared to drop off over the next five years, gains in reasoning ability and processing speed persisted 10 years after the training. “What we found was pretty astounding. Ten years after the training, there was evidence the effects were durable for the reasoning and the speed training,” said George Rebok, an expert on aging and a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who led the study. Participants in all three training groups also reported that they had an easier time with daily activities such as managing their medications, cooking meals or handling their finances than did participants who did not get the training. But standard tests of these activities showed no differences between the groups. “The speed-of-processing results are very encouraging,” said study co-author Jonathan King, program director for cognitive aging in the Division of Behavioral and Social Research at the National Institute on Aging (NIA), part of the National Institutes of Health, which helped fund the research. King said the self-reported improvements in daily function were interesting, but added, “We do not yet know whether they would truly allow older people to live independently longer.”  However, researchers said even a small gain would be likely to ease the burden on caregivers and healthcare providers. “If we delay the onset of difficulties in daily activities even by a small amount, that can have major public health implications in terms of helping to curb healthcare costs, delaying entry into institutions and hospitals,” Rebok said. The training course was designed to bolster specific cognitive abilities that begin to slip as people age. It does not aim to prevent dementia caused by underlying disease such as Alzheimer’s. At the start of the study, all 2,832 participants were cognitively normal. The study included four groups: three training groups plus a control group of volunteers who came in for regular testing to see how they were faring with age. People were trained in small groups over a period of several weeks and then were tested immediately after the training and again one, two, three, five and 10 years later. About 60 percent of the volunteers who underwent training also got booster training sessions, which enhanced the initial benefits. At the end of the trial, all groups showed declines compared with their initial baseline tests in memory, reasoning and processing speed, but those who got training in reasoning and processing speed experienced less decline. Among those given training in reasoning strategies, 73.6 percent were still performing above their pre-trial baseline level, compared with 61.7 percent of those who received no training and were only benefiting from practice on the test. The effect was even greater in processing speed. Among the training group, 70.7 percent of participants were performing at or above their baseline level, compared with 48.8 percent of those in the control group. There was no difference in memory performance between the memory group and the control group after 10 years. Two of the three training programs - the memory and the reasoning strategies - were done with paper and pencil, while the processing speed training was done on a computer. The programs, developed by the researchers, were focused largely on teaching strategies to improve cognitive performance. For example, the memory training taught people how to remember word lists, sequences and main ideas, while the reasoning training focused on things like recognizing number patterns. In the processing speed training, people were asked to focus on the main object in a computer screen while also trying to quickly recognize and identify objects on the periphery of the screen. Such training can help older drivers with things like recognizing road signs while driving. A version of the speed training program developed for this trial is now commercially available through the brain fitness company Posit Science, but the researchers are working on making other types of training available as well. Rebok’s team just got a grant from the National Institute on Aging to make a computerized version of the memory test, with the hope that repeated training can improve the results. The study was not designed to explain why cognitive training can have such a lasting effect. Rebok said it may be that people take the strategies they learn and practice them over time. As they age, trained individuals can rely on these strategies to compensate for their declines. Whether this training actually strengthened the brain in the way that exercising builds muscle is not clear, but the government intends to study this, too. Last week, NIA put out a request for proposals that would study whether cognitive training causes physical changes in the brain. Claim: Brain training helped older adults stay sharp for years: study.

Ex Output:
A brief course of brain exercises helped older adults hold on to improvements in reasoning skills and processing speed for 10 years after the course ended, according to results from the largest study ever done on cognitive training.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "As schools across the country open for the uncertain, unprecedented school year to come, opinions are split on how to do so safely. Some districts have opted for completely virtual learning. Others will try a mix of both online and in-person classes, or will send younger children to school while older kids stay home, or will phase students back to the classroom gradually. Others still are calling for schools to reopen completely for those who feel well enough to teach and attend, and who aren’t especially vulnerable to COVID-19. One such voice is U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, who in an Aug. 13, 2020 radio interview with Milwaukee talk show host Steve Scaffidi on WTMJ-AM discussed why he believes students need to return to school in person this fall. For younger people, Johnson asserted, ""seasonal flu is actually, in many cases, a deadlier virus if they contract that."" Is Johnson correct that COVID-19 is less deadly for children than the flu? Let’s dig in. COVID was less harsh on kids than the flu, this year’s stats show To back up his claim, Johnson’s office sent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on flu and COVID-19 deaths among Americans under age 18. During the 2018-19 flu season, the CDC reported approximately 480 flu deaths among children ages 0-17, about 30% of whom had a lab-confirmed case of influenza. Comparably, 90 American youth have died from coronavirus complications from the beginning of the pandemic through mid-August, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. More than 46,000 children were hospitalized for flu in that 2018-19 period. The hospitalization rate among children 5 to 17 was 39.2 children per 100,000 children. For COVID-19, that hospitalization rate is 6 per 100,000 children ages 5 to 17, the CDC says. In a report detailing the differences between COVID-19 and the flu, the CDC states that ""the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19."" And data from Wisconsin echoes that sentiment. Since the pandemic began, no children have died from COVID-19 complications, according to state Department of Health Services death data, and 147 people ages 0-19 have been hospitalized. In contrast, three pediatric flu deaths occurred during this year’s flu season, DHS data show, and 605 kids ages 17 and under have been hospitalized. The data show there have been fewer childhood deaths from COVID-19 so far this year than from the seasonal flu. The hold-up, of course, lies in nuance, said Dr. Jon Temte, associate dean for public health and community engagement within UW-Madison’s School of Medicine and Public Health. ""U.S. schools have been out (and) mostly closed since March, thus extremely limiting cases of SARS-CoV-2 in children. Conversely, we rarely close schools for influenza, thus allowing an attack rate of 30-40% in school-aged children,"" Temte wrote in an Aug. 27, 2020 email to PolitiFact Wisconsin. That is, the flu has been able to spread through children more commonly than COVID-19, creating more cases, more complications and more deaths. Other experts agree. Dr. Chad Vercio, chair of pediatrics at Riverside University Health System in California, said children’s risk from the coronavirus depends on how widespread the virus is in any given area, and that ""it is unknown"" if COVID hospitalization rates would rise once schools reopen. And though the early data suggests that COVID-19 is not as bad for children as the flu, it’s just that: Early. Dr. Vidya Mony, an infectious disease expert with Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said there isn’t enough data yet to say indisputably that COVID risks are lower for kids. Johnson claimed that in many cases, the seasonal flu was a deadlier virus for youth than COVID-19. The numbers show that this year, that was the case. More children died from flu complications than from COVID-19, and were hospitalized at higher rates for the flu. But experts caution that we don’t have enough data to paint the full picture so early in the game, and that schools shutting down in early spring may have driven down coronavirus case rates in children — meaning we can’t be sure exactly how the virus will move through young people when more of them are potentially getting exposed. Our definition for  is ""the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information."" That fits here." Claim: For younger people, seasonal flu is “in many cases” a deadlier virus than COVID-19

Ex Output:
Hospitalizations and deaths among children are higher for the seasonal flu than they are for COVID-19   The CDC states that the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19, though kids with underlying medical conditions will be at greater risk for both    But experts caution that we might not yet see the whole picture of how dangerous the coronavirus is for kids because schools largely shut down when it started to spread, shielding them from that potential place of exposure.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: On July 14 2019, a Facebook user shared a photograph purportedly illustrating the risks posed by grill brushes and the metal they can leave behind attaching to food that is consumed. In an attached status update, the poster warned:I would suggest to anyone that has a metal brush to clean your grill get rid of it. This is the result of eating a bristle off of one. I am looking at a long recovery. — at Pelham Medical Center.In the attached image, an exposed abdomen bears a long and painful-looking scar with more than twenty staples. No other details about the image were included with the post, but the obvious inference was that this was the result of surgery that was required after inadvertently ingesting metal fragments left on a grill by a cleaning brush.No information was included about how the injury manifested or which symptoms people already exposed to grilled foods might exhibit. However, news stories from previous years indicated that even if rare, summer grilling has occasionally led to people accidentally consuming food with grill brush debris attached.In May 2015, CBS reported that a Connecticut woman had been treated for the same injury. Her symptoms were described as a “sharp” and “unusual” pain:[In May 2015], a woman in Connecticut needed emergency surgery to remove a wire barbecue brush bristle from her digestive tract — and doctors say she’s not the first. Cheryl Harrison of Wallingford, Connecticut, was rushed to the hospital by her husband after feeling a sharp and unusual pain in her stomach.That pain was caused by a single stray bristle that had fallen off the metal grill cleaning brush and found its way into the hamburger she ate. She came into the emergency room within a day because of severe abdominal pain. After a CT scan showed the wire, doctors were able to remove it from her stomach through laparoscopic surgery.The article went on to describe a similar case in which the patient was not made aware of the injury as quickly. One doctor stated the injury was difficult to identify because the small size of the bristles meant they were difficult to find:Dr. Aziz Benbrahim, her general surgeon at MidState Medical Center, told CBS News she was lucky because she came in right away. A previous patient of his who had a grill brush wire stuck in his system waited for a couple of weeks. It had punctured his intestine.“I had to open him up completely, ” said Benbrahim. “Then we remove this wire and we found out also why he had chest pain — because he also had pulmonary embolism, which is a blood clot in his lungs.”“He was just lucky he was still alive,” he added. “All from this wire.”[…]“Nobody knows the statistics, that’s the problem. The only paper published talks about 6 or 7 cases and I believe it’s a much, much more common,” Benbrahim said. “When I was talking to my colleagues at the hospital, I was surprised that all of them had at least one or two patients like this. I didn’t think it was that common. And this isn’t a very big hospital, so I assume that in a bigger hospital they would have more.”The story further noted that in one hospital, at least six patients had similar injuries from ingesting grill brush wire over an 18-month period. One year later, WTSP reported that a man in Florida was injured the same way:A warning if you plan to fire up the grill this holiday weekend. A Lakeland man discovered a hidden health hazard the hard way, and it could be on your grill right now.“This is my little parting gift,” says Clif Hennecy. It’s a souvenir from the doctor’s office that Hennecy never imagined his doctor would find stuck in his stomach during a routine checkup.“It’s just a tiny, little bristle, but it’s stainless steel,” says Hennecy.The Lakeland man says the metal bristle came from the brush he used to use to clean his grill.“It’s a scary proposition having one of those lodged inside your stomach. It can cause abscesses, and cause infections, and it can cause people to die,” Hennecy says.And in July 2017, a boy in Canada was hurt when he swallowed wire fragments:Jenna Kuchik was kicking back after a July 4 [2017] barbecue with her fiance and three children when her 4-year-old son, Oliver Schenn, began to scream in pain.Terrified, Kuchik ran for the EpiPen. Oliver, whom Kuchik and her fiance, Matt Schenn, affectionately call Ollie, has a severe nut allergy. But the boy was not exhibiting any of symptoms of a reaction — only choking, screaming and crying.Twenty-four hours and two hospitals later, Ollie would emerge from surgery after doctors removed two tiny metal fibers from his esophagus. The culprit: the family’s wire barbecue brush.That outlet included some statistics about frequency, noting it was low but acute, and possibly underreported:Barbecue brushes have caused an estimated 1,698 emergency room visits from 2002 to 2014, according to a study published in 2016 in the journal Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. The rate of injuries is low when compared to similar emergencies, like children ingesting batteries, but the study’s lead, Dr. David Chang, associate professor at the University of Missouri’s department of otolaryngology, believes the data underrepresents the total volume of injuries. Urgent care clinics and primary care doctors likely see many similar cases that aren’t covered by the data in Chang’s study.A 2018 Consumer Reports article provided alternative methods of cleaning a grill without the ubiquitous wire brush:Consider alternative cleaning tools. Depending on what type of grill you have, you might try cleaning warm grill grates with a tool such as a pumice stone or a coil-shaped bristle-free brush. Check your owner’s manual for recommendations … You can also brush loose food particles off a warm grate with a wad of crumpled-up aluminum foil. Make sure grill grates are not hot enough to burn you.The claim about ingesting grill brush wires and requiring hospitalization represents a known but rare risk. Experts advise anyone who experiences symptoms like stomach pain after consuming grilled food to seek medical attention. Instead of using a wire grill brush, consumer safety advocates advise alternative grill cleaning methods, such as aluminum foil. Claim: People sometimes ingest metal fragments from grill brushes and become seriously injured.

Ex Output:

Can Grill Brushes Cause You to Ingest Metal and Become Ill?