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 Q]: 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
[EX A]: 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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: In December 2016, a video went viral, purportedly showing a man punching a kangaroo in order to save a dog:  Matthew Amor, who organized the trip in support of a friend who was battling an incurable disease, detailed the events that led to his friend punching a kangaroo to News.com.au: Mr Amor said it was totally out of character for his friend, Mr Tonkins, to hit the marsupial, describing him as a “placid bloke”. “My mate has a good government job, so he’s gone pretty quiet on this,” Mr Amor laughed. “We were driving along, the dogs are loose. They are trained to smell pig’s blood, and picked up a scent. “The dogs went past 20 kangaroos, which they are trained not to touch. “Anyway, this big buck got a hold of my friend’s dog. It just grabbed him.” Shortly after the video went viral, many people called on Taronga’s Western Plains zoo to fire Tonkins for punching the kangaroo. However, the zoo released a statement on 6 December 2016, saying that the incident did not put Tonkins’ position in jeopardy: Best practice animal welfare and the protection of Australian wildlife are of the utmost importance to Taronga. Taronga strongly opposes the striking of animals and does not support the practice of using dogs to hunt, as this can result in negative welfare for both species. We support the Guidelines outlined by the Department of Environment and Heritage in the event of confrontation with a kangaroo. Mr Tonkins is an experienced Zoo keeper and during his six years at Taronga Western Plains Zoo has always followed Taronga’s best practice approach to animal care and welfare. We confirm that there is no suggestion of Mr Tonkins’ employment at Taronga Western Plains Zoo ending as a result of this event. However, the highest standards of animal welfare and care are a core value of Taronga and one that we expect our staff to uphold in all their interactions with wildlife and we continue to work with Mr Tonkins on his conduct in regards to this incident. Kangaroos are often portrayed as cuddly and gentle marsupials and are generally docile, but can be quite vicious and even dangerous (kicking with their muscular back legs, using feet topped by razor-sharp nails as weapons) when they feel threatened (often by dogs). Claim: A viral video shows a man punching a kangaroo in the face to save his dog.
[EX A]: In this case, though, all parties — dog, man, and kangaroo — emerged from the confrontation relatively unscathed.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: His bout with depression reached its nadir in 2014 after a second DUI arrest. That’s when the most decorated Olympian of all time checked himself into a rehabilitative center in a desperate effort to make sense of it all. “When I was in my room and not wanting to talk to anybody for a number of days and not wanting to be alive, I wanted to see what other roads I could take to see if there was help,” Phelps recalled. The treatment he received — and continues to receive — charted his post-Olympic course. “I know it’s something that changed my life and saved my life and allowed me to be able to be where I am today, enjoying the platform of talking about something that’s so important,” Phelps told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday. Because he is willing to share his story of depression and raise awareness of mental health issues, Phelps was given the fifth annual Morton E. Ruderman Award in Inclusion on Tuesday night in Boston. After participating in four Olympic Games and collecting 28 medals, including 23 gold, Phelps has dedicated his time and energy to promoting the importance of water safety and advocating for the de-stigmatization of mental health problems through the Michael Phelps Foundation. “When I first really opened up about the struggles that I had in ’15, obviously I dreamed of being able to get more publicity to this and to really share my journey and have other people share their journeys with me as well,” Phelps said. “Honestly, I never thought it would be as big as this, but it’s been a true dream to be able to watch the growth that mental health has taken, almost being at center stage.” To say this endeavor has been fulfilling is an understatement. “Through this, if I can save one life, two lives, five lives, a thousand, a million, to me that’s so much more important than winning a gold medal,” he said. The 33-year-old Phelps believes his bout with depression is a story that many can share, including CEOs and other retired athletes. After accomplishing every goal he set for himself, what was left to do? “Probably my first real depression spell was after 2004, then the next big one was after 2008,” he said. “When you set out to be an Olympian, your whole life is put on hold. All the eggs are in one basket. I would say 2004, 2008, 2012, partly after ’16 (all Olympic years) I’ve dealt with pretty severe depression spells. I was kind of lost at that point.” The Baltimore native is in a far better frame of mind now. “To have my wife (Nicole Johnson), who’s always by my side, two amazing little boys at home and a third one on the way, I’m extremely thankful of the support I’ve had to get me through these times,” Phelps said. The Ruderman Award is given to individuals who are passionate about providing opportunities for others. Phelps certainly fits that description. “Michael Phelps is a unique leader who has used his fame and status as the greatest swimmer of all time to challenge our society to remove stigma surrounding mental health,” said Jay Ruderman, president of the Ruderman Family Foundation. “For me, this award means everything because this is where my passion is and the next chapter of my life is really heading,” Phelps said. “We’re kind of scratching the surface of what can be done, and I’m looking forward to continuing this journey and accomplishing some of the goals that I have — de-stigmatizing mental health and just getting the point across that it’s OK to not be OK.” ___ More AP sports: https://apnews.com/apf-Sports and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports Claim: Phelps honored for honesty on mental health, helping others.
[EX A]:
While swimming to Olympic glory, Michael Phelps found comfort in the pool and quite a bit of angst out of it.