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.

Example Input: Paragraph: Although the release doesn’t give actual costs of warfarin versus some of the newer drugs, or factor in the cost of the usual monthly blood testing required of those taking the drug, it does note the cost of the gene testing used for the study, and that the $200 price tag is now less than a month’s prescription of one of the newer anti-coagulants on the market. The release gives results in both actual numbers of patients and the percentage of reduction of adverse events in those given the genetic test and a comparison group. Although it does so in general terms, the release covers the essentials: the risk of using blood thinners like warfarin and the risks of not using them. The release offers a good description of the design of the study. It was randomized and enrolled more than 1,600 older patients at high risk of blood clots following surgeries. The release explains that one group received warfarin dosing based on standard factors (age, height and weight) and the second group was dosed using these clinical factors plus their genetic variants. The release also offers a detailed breakdown on how many fewer side effects occurred among patients had genetic testing completed compared to those who didn’t. No mongering here. Nicely done and quite complete. Although the release briefly mentions the availability of a “newer anticoagulant,” it should have included a sentence or two about these newer injectable drugs and their overall risks and benefits in comparison to warfarin. It would also have been helpful to tell readers whether the genetic testing that appears to play a role in safer warfarin dosing would have clinical relevance for informing the use of the new blood thinners as well. The fact is that genetic testing is irrelevant for the newer anti-coagulants because they operate in a completely different manner. But all the blood thinners — old and new — carry the same risk of bleeding. The problem with warfarin is the variability in blood levels which requires frequent monitoring, hence the genetic tests to guide dosing. The careful reader will get it: testing for these genetic variants is still an experimental practice for the most part, and further testing of how the mutations affect warfarin is needed. But the release could have been more explicit in saying that no one is yet recommending genetic testing for millions of warfarin users. While the genetic tests are “available” in the sense that anyone can order them for the most part, they are not routinely used clinically and probably wouldn’t be covered by insurance so in that sense they are not widely available to most people. The release describes how the genetic test used in the new study differs from previous similar studies. Overall the language is careful and contextual. The headline should have been toned back a bit to note that this is early research and more study is needed before concluding that “Genetic testing helps set safe dose of common blood thinner,” as the headline now states. Claim: Genetic testing helps set safe dose of common blood thinner
Example Output: This news release describes results of a study designed to learn whether testing for the presence of three gene variants could make dosing with the blood thinner warfarin safer for patients given the drug to prevent blood clots after joint replacement surgery. The study found a modest reduction in the risk of bleeding or clots (from over- or under-dosing) in those whose regimens were developed in part by genetic testing for the variants, compared to those whose doses were calculated without the genetic testing. The release does an overall good job in describing the study, its purpose and design; and in quantifying the results. It could have been even stronger if it had included more information about newer alternatives to warfarin that are growing in use and an explicit statement that no one is yet recommending routine genetic testing for the variants based on this study. And although the headline somewhat over promises clinical benefit at this point in time, thoughtful readers will come away with a decent understanding of the context of the research and its potential impact. Some estimates put the number of Americans regularly taking the clot-preventing blood thinner warfarin and several newer anticoagulants at more than six million. Warfarin (sold under the brand name Coumadin) requires frequent blood testing to address risks of overdoses (and potentially lethal bleeding) and under-dosing (ineffective prevention of strokes and other blood clots). Because warfarin is cheap, and its effects are reversible with vitamin K, research designed to make it easier and safer for patients to take is likely to be highly newsworthy for them and their caregivers.

Example Input: Paragraph: France has already ordered 1 billion masks to ease an acute shortage nationwide that has angered front-line healthcare officials and politicians as the coronavirus outbreak has swept across the country, killing at least 3,523 people. Speaking at a mask-producing factory on Tuesday, Macron said he had ordered a tripling of domestic mask production by the end of April to 10 million and production of 10,000 extra respirators by mid-May. “The priority today is to produce more in Europe and France,” Macron said at the Kolmi-Hopen factory near the western town of Angers. “By the end of the year I want to us to be fully and completely independent (in production),” he said, adding that 4 billion euros ($4.39 billion) had been set aside for the Public Health Authority to buy equipment. The pandemic has triggered a massive surge in demand for protective gear in France and neighboring European countries including Italy and Spain, with the world’s worst and second worst death tolls from the respiratory illness respectively. China, where the virus originated and where countless factories were shut down to contain its spread, accounts for more than half the global production of masks, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). New mask producers like car parts maker Faurecia, tire maker Michelin and retailer Intermarché will also push total output to 15 million per week, Macron said. The number of people in France infected with the virus rose to 52,128 on Tuesday, a 17% rise on the previous day. In 2013, France’s previous government took the decision to sharply reduce the number of face masks held in strategic reserve after a public outcry over the cost of bolstering stocks during the H1N1 bird flu crisis. Mask consumption since the onset of the coronavirus crisis has soared from four million per week to more than 40 million, but the state’s pre-crisis inventory of 140 million has proved insufficient as has the import of billions of masks. Nowhere has the shortage been felt more than in hospitals and nursing homes where health professionals have criticized the government’s slow reaction to the unfolding crisis. Sarah, a nurse in a coronavirus wing of a Paris hospital, told Reuters on Tuesday that the lack of masks for staff, but also patients, was getting worse despite government pledges. “Each patient should have their own mask, but we don’t have enough to change them and some don’t even have any. I had one (patient) who coughed on me and we didn’t have any gel left either to disinfect,” she said. “What makes me angry is that we don’t have the equipment to protect ourselves. Who will look after the patients when we fall sick?”    The management of the crisis, which has halt the economy and forced the government to lock down France until at least April 15, has also been condemned by opposition lawmakers. Far-right National Rally leader Marine Le Pen said on Monday the government had lied about “absolutely everything, without any exceptions”. Macron hit back on Tuesday. “When we fight a battle, we must be united to win it and I think that all those who are already trying to hold trials when we have not won the war are irresponsible,” he said. “The time will come for accountability.” Claim: Amid criticism, Macron vows to raise medical gear output to tackle coronavirus.
Example Output: President Emmanuel Macron pledged on Tuesday to make France self-sufficient in protective masks by year-end and learn lessons from the coronavirus emergency, firing back at growing criticism of his government over painful equipment shortages.

Example Input: Paragraph: The cost differences between aspirin and anticoagulant drugs are listed and the potential savings by using aspirin are highlighted. The release lists the percentages of patients who had a blood clot within three months of their knee replacement and emphasized that there was no statistical difference between those who took only aspirin and those who took anticoagulants. However, the release is remiss in not pointing out that the majority of patients were also treated with pneumatic compression boots. “Good old aspirin” implies that aspirin is benign and without potential harms, which is not accurate, even if the harms of aspirin are typically less than those of anticoagulants. There are two potential harms that were examined: bleeding and formation of clot. While the report notes that aspirin was “not inferior” to other anticoagulants, it was silent on the incidence of bleeding. In several places, the release mischaracterizes the study design and muddles distinctions between the results of this study and information from other sources. It neglects to point out key limitations noted by the study authors, including that the results seen in this network of Michigan hospitals may not reflect the experiences of patients elsewhere and that “this is an observational study and can only demonstrate association and not causation.” The study variable was the choice of a clot-prevention drug prescribed to patients the day before surgery, the day of surgery and the day after. The release muddles things by stating, “it’s routine for patients to take clot-preventing drugs for some time afterward.” The headline, subhead and lead sentence all refer to patients taking aspirin “after” or “following” a knee replacement. Readers are likely to mistakenly believe that the study looked at long-term use of clot-preventing drugs, rather than what it actually tracked: the choice of drug for the brief 3-day period around the procedure. The release also quotes a researcher saying, “This study is truly a real-world experience of what happened in Michigan when the majority of surgeons switched to aspirin,” Hallstrom says. “The incidence of blood clots, pulmonary embolus and death did not increase despite this dramatic change in practice.” However, this study was not set up to compare outcomes before and after a change in practice, so this prominent description of the study is not faithful to the actual study design. The release refers to “the two-year study period,” which readers could misinterpret to mean patients were followed for two-years, not just 90 days; though elsewhere the release does refer to the percentage of blood clots “over three months.” The release does not push knee replacement or clot-preventing drugs, though it does somewhat overstate the number of total knee replacements. The release cites a figure of “nearly 1 million Americans” each year, while other sources estimate the rate is closer to 700,000 per year. The disclosure statements included with the journal article reporting on this study note that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan support the quality improvement group that did this study and pay some of the salaries of key researchers. Even though the disclosure statements say Blue Cross and Blue Shield did not specifically fund the work on this study, the release should have noted the funding relationship. The release highlights the comparison between alternatives for minimizing blood clot risk due to knee replacement surgery. The release notes that many knee replacements surgeries are performed every year. The release notes that the question of the best clot-prevention strategy for knee replacement patients has been debated for years. It cites an advantage over one recent study. Comparing the language of the release to the more-specific description in the journal article, it does seem that the release appropriately portrays this study as adding to the evidence that surgeons can use when prescribing drugs. Although the release paints a rather rosy and benign image of “good old aspirin,” the release is clear that this study found that there was no statistical difference in outcomes between patients taking aspirin versus anticoagulant drugs…and it pointed out that doctors need to consider a patient’s history of blood clots, obesity and other factors. Claim: Aspirin alone a good clot buster after knee surgery
Example Output:
It is certainly welcome news when a study reports that a cheaper, over-the-counter drug produces results about the same as more expensive prescription drugs that are generally trickier to use. However, this release about aspirin performing about the same as anticoagulant drugs for preventing blood clots in patients undergoing knee replacement surgery implies that “good old aspirin” is essentially without risks. The release neglects to tell readers about important limitations of the study, and its description of key aspects of the study is a bit muddled. The release does clearly point out the price differences between the drugs studied. News releases should be clear about when they are referring to the specific design or results of a study and when they are providing general context for readers. This release makes several references to blood clot prevention following knee replacement surgery and it lists the price of a 30-day supply of some of the drugs that were studied. Most readers would probably conclude that researchers studied long-term use of the drugs, when actually the only variable studied was what, if any, drug was used the day before surgery, the day of surgery, and the day after. The release also uses a quote from a researcher that improperly implies that the study compared prescribing practices before and after participating surgeons largely shifted from prescribing anticoagulants to preferring aspirin. The imprecision muddies the message to readers.