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: The story notes the an additional $20 per mammogram with CAD when billed to Medicare. With the newer technology, costs to public health would increase via additional screening and unnecessary biopsies, and treatment would increase for cancers that may never become problematic (i.e. some forms of DCIS or ductal carcinoma in situ). The story provides data that there was little positive difference between radiologists' and CAD detection of cancer via mammogram images. However, the story does not mention results of any other evaluations of the technology (e.g. how it has been used in UK and other countries where results did show benefit in terms of increased detection of cancer). The story mentions that the newer technology may result in over treatment as there are more false positives with the CAD technology vs. radiologists' analysis alone. In a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, there was 20% increase in biopsy rates after mammographers used the CAD software. The article does not present the study well. It was an observational study of select practices in the US – not randomized, not controlled and there was no information about how representative these samples were, especially the centers that used CAD. The story presented some key results but virtually nothing about the study design. The story does not engage in disease mongering or suggest that women should opt for mammograms at centers that have the new CAD technology. The story provides many clinical perspectives on the CAD technology. The reporter interviews not only the study author and the author of an accompanying NEJM editorial, but also clinicians and radiologists who talk about use of CAD in practice. Interviews with clinicians who provide their rationale for not using the CAD technology provide excellent balance to the story. The story discusses the continued benefit of mammography for early detection of breast cancer. The story highlights that computer-assisted screening does not replace human judgment in interpretation of radiological films. The story mentions that about 30% of mammography centers use computer-aided detection (CAD) technology. The story mentions that CAD is a newer method of reading mammographies, but in a recent observational trial it was no better–and may have produced more false positives–than images read and interpreted by radiologists alone. The story does not rely solely on a press release for information, and there is independent reporting and sources cited not affiliated with the recently published data on CAD. Claim: Doubts on mammogram software

Output: This story provides readers with a balanced discussion of the potential downside of incorporating newer technologies into routine practice too soon. Specifically, the story reports evidence recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine that computer-aided detection (CAD), a newer method of reading mammographies, was no better–and may have produced more false positives–than images read and interpreted by radiologists alone. There was 20% increase in biopsies after mammographers used the CAD software, and many of these women had non-malignant lesions. The article did not adequately describe the study. It was an observational study of select practices in the US – not randomized, not controlled and there was no information about how representative these samples were, especially in the centers that used CAD. The story reported on key results, but without adequately explaining how they were arrived at. The story provides multiple perspectives on the CAD technology in breast cancer detection. The reporter interviews not only the lead author of the NEJM study, but also the author of an accompanying editorial on this newer technology, as well as radiologists who talk about CAD in their practice. Interviews with clinicians who offer a rationale for not using the CAD technology give excellent balance to the story and provide an often overlooked perspective: newer and more high-tech devices are not necessarily better. The story notes the additional $20 per mammogram cost to Medicare with CAD. With the newer technology, costs to public health would increase via additional screening and unnecessary biopsies, and treatment would likely increase for cancers that may never become problematic (i.e. some forms of DCIS or ductal carcinoma in situ). Importantly, the story discuses the continued benefit of mammography for early detection of breast cancer. The story highlights that computer-assisted screening does not replace human judgment in interpretation of radiological films. More screening centers with the CAD technology are available; however, the new technology may not serve women any better. Traditional mammography with a radiologist interpreting the results may be more accurate and result in fewer unnecessary tests and biopsies.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The National Health Commission on Sunday also issued a notice asking for improvement in testing capacity and quality nationwide. Nine of the new cases were imported infections, data from commission showed. Authorities reported that total confirmed cases across mainland China had risen to 82,735 with 4,632 deaths as of April 18. The northeastern province of Heilongjiang has seen a rise in infected travellers arriving from Russia in recent weeks, and is now battling to contain a flare-up in local cases. Heilongjiang has reported 39 new local cases in the past 10 days, or more than 50% of all new 73 locally transmitted cases reported in the mainland during the same period. Most were related to one imported case in the provincial capital, Harbin. On Friday, 18 officials in Harbin, including a vice mayor, were punished. To help contain the outbreak, the Heilongjiang government is cautioning against family gatherings, cross infections at hospitals, and slow reporting in epidemic investigations, it said on the provincial government’s website. “The biggest political task at present is to stop the rebound and spread of the epidemic,” Wang Yongkang, vice governor of Heilongjiang, was quoted as saying. Elsewhere in mainland China, all areas in central Hubei province including Wuhan, the epicentre of the outbreak in China, are now considered low risk. However, a Beijing central district is seen as high-risk, according to a social media post by the State Council, or Cabinet. On April 15, the Chinese capital reported three local cases, all of which were linked to an imported infection. Areas that are considered of medium-risk in China include two districts in Harbin, the city of Suifenhe in Heilongjiang, two districts in the southern city of Guangzhou and Jiaozhou city in eastern Shandong province. Separately, authorities reported 44 new asymptomatic cases of coronavirus, including three which were imported. Such cases, where patients test positive but show no clinical symptoms such as a cough or fever, are excluded from China’s tally of confirmed cases. In urging better testing, the National Health Commission said all large general hospitals need to set up laboratories that meet certain requirements and can conduct coronavirus testing independently. Since March, an average 54,000 tests have been conducted a day in Hubei province and that rose to 89,000 tests on April 17, Liu Dongru, a Hubei health commission official, told a news conference on Sunday. In Beijing, the number of institutions able to conduct nucleic acid testing has risen to 50 from 17 in early February, a municipal health commission official said on Sunday. In areas under great pressure, especially at land borders, local governments should help county-level medical institutions obtain nucleic acid testing capability, the commission said. Testing should be conducted by qualified medical institutions and independent medical laboratories, it said, adding that training for medical staff should be stepped up and testing operations standardised to reduce problems with the accuracy of testing. Claim: China's new coronavirus cases fall, eyes on northeastern province.

Output: China on Sunday reported 16 new coronavirus cases but no deaths while authorities remained on guard against a major resurgence and monitored the spread of cases in Heilongjiang province.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Last weekend, U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey recorded a message about how to stop the spread of the coronavirus and posted it on Twitter. His message was simple and direct – start wearing a homemade mask when you leave the house. ""My mask will keep someone else safe and their mask will keep me safe,"" said Toomey, a Republican from the Lehigh Valley. ""I’m not suggesting this is any kind of guarantee. It probably doesn’t have tremendous value for the person wearing the mask but it probably does significantly reduce the risk that people could inadvertently transmit it."" Since masks for health care workers are in such short supply, we wondered whether Toomey’s claim is . For weeks, public health officials advised healthy Americans not to wear masks. But on Friday, President Donald Trump announced that the guidance had changed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now urging everyone to wear homemade cloth masks when they leave the house, just as Toomey called for a week ago. He was the first member of Congress to advocate for the shift. But even as Trump announced the new rules, he said he didn’t plan to follow them himself. ""It’s voluntary so you don’t have to do it,"" Trump said at Friday’s daily coronavirus briefing. ""They suggest it for a period of time. I don’t think I’m going to be doing it."" Trump said the guidance shifted because research indicates that people who are infected with the coronavirus but aren’t showing any symptoms can still transmit the disease. He also reiterated that wearing homemade masks is not a replacement for other strategies such as social distancing and hand-washing. ""We want to make sure everybody understands it’s not a substitute for the presidential guidelines that have already gone out,"" Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force, said Thursday. Toomey got another thing right. Homemade masks are significantly more effective at preventing asymptomatic carriers of the virus from accidentally spreading it than they are at shielding a healthy person from contracting it. And the efficacy of any homemade mask depends on how it’s made. The most effective homemade masks are made of thick cloth and make a tight seal around the wearer’s face. ""Given the current crisis, and lacking an alternative, many layers of densely woven fabric would be the most effective, because it allows for lots of voids in the layers where particles can be trapped,"" Richard Peltier, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, told us by email. ""The mask needs to seal as tightly as possible to the face to avoid leaks, though this may not be possible with different designs, fabrics, or face shapes. Thin or porous fabrics are the least likely to be effective."" A study published in October 2010 tested how cloth masks and common fabrics fared when sprayed with aerosols at different speeds. All of the materials performed worse than hospital-grade N95 respirators. But some, such as cotton towels and scarves, were in the range of some surgical masks. The authors cautioned that fabric materials ""show only marginal filtration performance against virus-size particles when sealed around the edges."" Another study from 2013 found that cotton masks only perform about half as well as surgical masks and ""should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals."" More recent research had similar results. So at best, using thick or layered fabric to make a homemade mask could be as effective as using some surgical masks. At worst, it prevents at least some of your respiratory droplets from spreading to others while in public. Under ideal circumstances, no face masks are intended to be worn for more than one encounter. That guidance also extends to homemade masks. ""At the end of the day, these cloth masks should be treated as contaminated materials that you bring in to your home — they need to be laundered in hot soapy water, and you’d need to consider sanitizing in bleach or hydrogen peroxide regularly,"" Peltier said. Toomey’s claim that his homemade mask would keep someone else safe and that someone else’s homemade mask would keep him safe matches the latest guidance from the CDC." Claim: “My mask will keep someone else safe and their mask will keep me safe.”


Output: Last weekend, U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey recorded a message about how to stop the spread of the coronavirus and posted it on Twitter. His message was simple and direct – start wearing a homemade mask when you leave the house. He was the first member of Congress to suggest this. For weeks, public health officials advised healthy Americans not to wear masks. But on Friday, President Donald Trump announced that the guidance had changed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now urging everyone to wear homemade cloth masks when they leave the house. Trump said the guidance shifted because research indicates that people who are infected with the coronavirus but aren’t showing any symptoms can still transmit the disease. He also reiterated that wearing homemade masks is not a replacement for other strategies such as social distancing and hand-washing.