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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: "The story had a sidebar explaining the cost of Bod Pod testing in Puget Sound locations ranges from $25 – 50. The story indicated one might benefit from the information generated by BOD POD measurement by helping set realistic weight loss goals. It did not actually provide the reader with any information about whether evidence exists demonstrating that it is of benefit for weight loss or improvement in adiposity-related risks. The story indicated that obtaining body composition information could be anxiety or guilt provoking. Although the story stated that ‘Data suggest the BOD POD is accurate’, it didn’t actually indicate what sort of evidence exists documenting this. While there may be evidence that the BOD POD is ""accurate"" the story did not state whether the evidence is solid or controversial. Most importantly, the story did not address the question as to whether there is any quality evidence that knowing your body fat percentage is truly helpful in improving your health. There also wasn’t any evidence presented about how effective it is to measure body fat percentage prior to engaging in a weight loss program in terms of whether it helps people lose weight. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. In fact, it concluded that having the test is ""not a good idea if the number will be just one more thing to obsess over or feel guilty about."" Both professionals interviewed were from the private commercial sector – one from a center that uses the Bod Pod (hardly an independent voice on the topic) and one who is a book author. The story would have been enhanced with the inclusion of insight from a clear expert in the field of body composition assessment. The story did a very nice job of running through the various techniques for measuring body composition and even included a link to an online calculator of body mass index (BMI). The story explained that body composition measurement with the BOD POD is hard to find because there are few locations with the apparatus. The story accurately portrayed the BOD POD as a piece of equipment that had been around for a while. We can’t be sure if the story relied largely or solely on a news release." Claim: What are you made of? The BOD POD knows all

Answer: This story did a fine job of explaining the various ways body composition can be measured and what the measurement means and how it might be used. But a major shortcoming of the story was that it did not do a good job of providing a critical appraisal of the evidence behind the BOD POD device. Do we really know that it is worthwhile to measure our body fat percentage? At what cost? If it is so beneficial, why doesn’t my health care provider have a BOD POD in the office? What do clinical experts in body composition measurement say about the evidence that the BOD POD is a more useful tool than the body mass index? All unanswered, but important, questions for this story to address. This may be a case where our star ratings are deceptively high.


Question: Paragraph: The story does not talk about costs, which was disappointing. The costs of intensive medical therapy can easily be identified. Using an online pharmacy we calculated the costs to be about $1,500 to $2,000 annually for medical therapy, using generic drugs. Using the Health Care Blue Book, we found the average cost of coronary artery bypass sugery and hospitalization to be about $62,000. We think that this is important information for readers that should have been included. The quantification here was presented in such a way to make it clear to readers that there was no significant benefit found to surgical intervention, which is a fair conclusion to draw from the study. The story says, “In the Stich study, 41% of patients assigned to treatment with drugs alone died during the follow-up period, which averaged five years. That compared with a mortality rate of 36% among patients who received bypass surgery plus medication. Although the relative reduction in risk of death was 14%, the result didn’t meet tests for statistical significance, meaning it could have resulted from chance alone.” That’s a great way to describe the lack of statistical significance. It would have been even more powerful to show readers the actual number of patients who died in each group. The story provides great information about the study itself and about the overall state of the evidence supporting heart surgery. “How best to treat these patients has been fraught with uncertainty,” is one of the more notable phrases from the story. It also says, “Many patients aren’t evaluated for heart surgery to treat diseased arteries because they don’t suffer classic chest pain or because doctors worry that hearts weakened by heart failure won’t benefit from the procedure. Other doctors recommend immediate bypass surgery despite a lack of vigorous studies to support that strategy.” The story does not engage in disease-mongering and takes a very careful approach to describing the types of patients who would be affected by this study’s results. We also like the way they provided snapshots of patients who were in both arms of the study — surgery and non-surgery — at the end of the story, making it clear, as the study did, that both routes can be equally successful. The story brings in some strong independent voices who help make sense of this complicated study: James Fang, a cardiologist at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, Raymond Gibbons, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, and Clyde Yancy, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. Rarely do you see a story that spends as much time with independent experts as it does with the authors of the study. The story does a great job showing how the standard interventions for heart disease stacked up against each other in this study. We wish that some mention had been made of diet and exercise and that at least a sentence had been included about whether there might be differences in outcomes seen as a result of different medication patterns. The story doesn’t make it clear what exactly the patients were taking. The story makes it clear that the range of treatments studied by the authors are widely available. The story makes it clear that there is a great need for more evidence in this field and that this study will be surprising to many clinicians because of a long-held assumption that surgery is the superior option. tudies published in the early 1990s supported the view that bypass surgery provided a better long term outcome. The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: More Options Before Bypass Surgery, Study Finds

Answer: The piece gave readers some powerful information to help them sort through the range of factors that should be considered for any medical intervention. The only weakness our reviewers found with the story is the lack of comment about cost. Too often stories present medical options as false choices of best versus worst. They don’t take into consideration the very real differences between patients’ medical histories, diagnoses and expectations. This story should be applauded for giving readers a clear understanding of the complexities of shared decision-making between providers and patients. As noted by one of the experts quoted in the story, “You don’t have a good therapy and a bad therapy, you have a choice.” This is a message that the story gets across very well and is an important one for readers.


Question: Paragraph: We think it’s too early to guess at what any therapy based on this technique would cost, so we won’t flag the story for not mentioning costs. The story says that the therapy resulted in “increased platelet counts” and “improvement of some immune-system cells.” The story should have provided quantitative data and tried to explain what these changes might mean for patients. Another problem is that the story didn’t tell us how long the patients were followed and how long the benefits lasted. The effects of some gene therapies fade with time because the cells injected with DNA by viruses ultimately die and stop producing the therapeutic protein. The story acknowledged early on and prominently that one of the study participants developed leukemia, which may have been related to the new treatment. The story probably should have mentioned that other harms might become apparent as these patients are followed further or as more patients are studied. However, we think the study went far enough to earn a satisfactory. Although the story was not grossly imbalanced and did feature some restraining quotes about the early stage of the research, we don’t think it went far enough in explaining just how preliminary this research, and the report upon which the story is based, are. Here’s where we think the story fell short: Again, while the story’s coverage was not overtly misleading, we think discussion of these issues would have put additional (and appropriate) emphasis on the need for caution when interpreting the results. The story didn’t exaggerate the consequences of Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome. The story included interviews with two independent experts who weren’t involved with the study. The story discusses one of the primary existing treatments for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome: bone marrow transplants. The story’s muddled overview of this treatment is likely to leave readers confused, however. The story starts off its description by saying that such transplants, if they succeed, “basically cure the disease.” It then goes on to list a number of serious complications that can plague even apparently successful transplants. So the children treated via transplant sound like they probably aren’t “cured” as the story initially states. We’ll call it satisfactory, but we wish the story was a bit clearer on this point. The story never explicitly addresses the availability of this new technique or how close it may be to approval. However, it does note that the research represents just a “first step” and “proof of concept” for the new approach. Although we would like to have seen a more direct comment about the many years of testing that lie ahead for any therapy based on this technique, we think most readers will understand that this is preliminary research and not something they’re likely to have access to anytime soon. The story never mentioned that gene therapy using viral vectors is being studied for the treatment of a variety of other hereditary diseases as well as cancer. Importantly, this research has shown that it is extremely difficult to develop effective therapies based on viral vectors — context that would have been valuable in this story. This story doesn’t appear to be based on a news release. Claim: Gene Therapy Corrected Rare Bleeding Disorder: Study

Answer:
This story relayed the findings of a very preliminary study on a new treatment for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome — a rare genetic disorder that leads to serious immune system deficiencies and problems with blood clotting. While the story did convey some caution about the early stage of this research and the potential for major side effects, it didn’t provide quite enough detail to satisfy many of our criteria. A more thorough investigation would have emphasized just how far this technology has to go before it can be widely adopted. Because of its devastating effects on the immune system, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome puts sufferers at increased risk of death from infections and cancer. Although bone marrow transplants can be an effective and durable treatment, many children have problems finding a good match. In addition, bone marrow transplants come with a host of serious risks and are not a treatment option for everyone. New treatments, such as the experimental gene therapy discussed in this story, are badly needed.