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: This release makes no mention of the costs of the drugs compared in this study, even though the drugs have been in use for years and are widely available. Since the study is a comparison of various treatments for this form of cancer, it seems relevant to offer a cost comparison as well as a comparison of efficacy. It appears that the high dose methotrexate is given over a 24-hour period, presumably in the hospital, while the standard methotrexate is given as a single dose. Also, the high dose methotrexate is followed by leucovorin administration while the standard dose is not. According to the site GoodRx, the cost for methotrexate in low-dose (2.5 mg) pill form averages out to about $50 for a month’s supply. Newer, injectable variations of the drug cost upwards of $500 a month for the 25 mg dose. The release states that patients receiving high doses of the drug methotrexate “had a significantly better outcome, by 5 to 6 percent” than did patients receiving the current standard of care, which is gradually escalating doses of the drug. The release also explains that patients nine years old or younger who were also treated with a steroid called decadron (dexamethasone) for half as long as normal (14 versus 28 days) benefited from the treatment while patients 10 and older did not. We’re not sure of the meaning behind these results as portrayed in the release. Which outcome was better by 5 or 6 percent? The study has several. Does that mean the relapse rate was reduced or is it the event free survival that was better? It would be more meaningful to readers if the release had included the actual relapse and event free survival rates for each group analyzed in terms most people can understand. For example: “relapse rates were 5 percent lower in Group X compared to Group Y.” We’ll give this category a satisfactory rating largely due to the release including information that patients 10 and older receiving dexamethasone “were at much higher risk for a debilitating bone condition called osteonecrosis,” although we would have been happier if that greater risk would have been quantified. However, the published study explains that there were toxicity problems beyond that of dexamethasone and the release would have been stronger including that information as well. The release stated the study was randomized and controlled, and provides a broad overview of the study design, for which we give the release a borderline satisfactory under this criteria. However, these are the superficial results. On deeper delving into the study methodology, the statistical significances of the results were very close to not statistically significant. This is due to their planned interim stopping of the treatment and the fact that they were looking at multiple outcomes in multiple groups. This release doesn’t demonstrate disease-mongering. While the release does say that this clinical trial was run by the Children’s Oncology Group, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, it makes no mention of possible conflicts of interest. Compounding that is the fact that the published study says, “Disclosures provided by the authors are available with this article at www.jco.org,” but that information is behind the journal’s paywall for most readers, so it’s unknown if there is, or is not, a conflict. It appears as though five of the authors (out of a total of about 20) have some conflicts of interest, mostly from several types of drug company payments. The release is comparing the efficacy of treatment regimens using different drugs so alternative treatments for B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia are noted. The release makes clear at the end that the treatment of this disease is improving thanks to refinement of the use of existing drug treatments, meaning that they are readily available for patient use. The release suggests the study findings could change the way childhood leukemia is treated. Modifying existing treatments to enhance a patient’s survival is certainly novel enough to warrant a release. There is no use of unjustifiable language in this release. However, the tone may be a bit overly optimistic given the study findings. Claim: Relapses of childhood leukemia improve with high doses of common chemo drug
Example Output: This release reports the findings of a large clinical trial testing whether alternative dosing regimens of standard chemotherapeutic drugs can improve the treatment of B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The study showed that using high doses of the drug methotrexate, rather than the standard regimen of gradually increasing doses, improved the outcomes for patients with the disease. The study also showed that using the steroid dexamethasone increased a debilitating bone condition in patients 10 and older but not in patients nine or younger. While the study results are promising, they are by no means clear-cut in the release. The release needed some qualifiers in order to give a clear picture of the benefits. The release also neglected to discuss costs and potential conflicts of interest among the investigators. This form of cancer — B-acute lymphoblastic leukemia — is the most common cancer in children and a major cause of cancer death in patients under 40 years old. And while the majority of patients survive with appropriate treatment, anywhere from one-fifth to one-quarter of patients do not. This study showed that refining the dosing of standard cancer drugs may improve the outcome for some high-risk patients.

Example Input: Paragraph: The footage, said to be filmed in January at Planned Parenthood clinics in Falls Church, Charlottesville and Roanoke, Virginia, is the latest in a series of videos made public by Live Action, a California-based group that opposes abortion. Live Action said in a statement that the videos are evidence Planned Parenthood is “willing to aid and abet the sexual trafficking and exploitation of minors and young women.”   Planned Parenthood said the undercover videos are part of a coordinated lobbying effort to advance legislation that would take away funding from the family planning organization. The three videos, one at each clinic, show a man saying he’s involved in sex work and manages teenage girls ask questions about prices and identification requirements for sexually transmitted disease testing, birth control and abortions. In each case he asks if the conversations are confidential. In the videos, Planned Parenthood employees answer questions about health services offered at the clinic and explain requirements associated with different procedures. “It’s very clear to us that these tapes show health professionals doing their job,” said Planned Parenthood spokesman Stuart Schear of the new footage. “What the tapes don’t show is that after these unusual encounters, these health professionals went to their superiors and reported they had unusual encounters with a suspicious individual and Planned Parenthood managers reported their suspicions to local authorities,” Schear said. Planned Parenthood has said previously that the FBI is reviewing evidence and photos related to the encounters. All of the undercover videos were filmed during the same week. The first one, released on Tuesday, focused on a clinic in central New Jersey. The New Jersey clinic employee captured on film was later fired for her behavior. Planned Parenthood said it notified both local and national authorities after the string of unusual visits, which occurred within one week in at least 12 centers in six states, including New Jersey and Virginia. In January, Planned Parenthood said it alerted U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that a series of health centers had been approached by visitors whose comments indicated involvement in sex trafficking of minors. Live Action’s founder, Lila Rose, said her group will send the Virginia footage to state law enforcement officials and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli said in a statement released Friday that he plans to review the footage, noting that what he has seen so far “is very disturbing.”   Meanwhile, New Jersey’s Attorney General Paula Dow is aware of the video and has referred the matter to the Division of Criminal Justice for review, spokesman Paul Loriquet said earlier in the week. Claim: Anti-abortion group releases more video of Planned Parenthood.
Example Output: An anti-abortion group released on Friday three more undercover videos, which it said show Planned Parenthood employees helping a man posing as a pimp get abortions and birth control for underage girls.

Example Input: Paragraph: Not applicable. The cost of such a diet is not in question. The story provided the absolute number of strokes observed in the analysis, and the relative risk reduction observed. With a meta-analysis it is not statistically appropriate to pool absolute risk reductions, so the way the story treated the evidence is as good as can be done (showing the relative risk reduction and an “anchor” in terms of absolute risk.) Harms weren’t discussed, but we’re not sure there any substantial harms of a diet rich in leafy green vegetables, nuts and beans worth mentioning. We appreciate how the story’s second sentence emphasized: “But the authors of the study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, stopped short of recommending people take a daily magnesium supplement because their analysis focused on magnesium in food — and it may be another aspect of the food that is responsible for their finding.” There was no disease mongering. The story included one independent expert’s perspective. We’ll give the story a satisfactory grade for emphasizing that this study could not address whether other aspects of peoples’ diets affected the findings – and that the results were consistent with dietary recommendations. The story would have been stronger if it had mentioned the importance of hypertension control in stroke reduction – and that it may be the favorable dietary pattern that is working with these people through improved blood pressure control. Not applicable. The availability of this kind of diet is not in question. The story was clear that this study was an analysis of seven studies published in the past 14 years. The story did not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Magnesium-rich diet may lower stroke risk: study
Example Output:
Except for the headline, the story was carefully framed to avoid overstating the findings. This story is a good example of how to report on an observational meta-analysis. We know how headlines are almost always written by someone other than the reporter. The disconnect here was clear. Stroke is a major cause of death and disability in the aging population. We can decrease stroke risk by treating hypertension and taking aspirin. If dietary interventions decrease risk further, this is important public health information. People need to understand the context, however, because no one should rush out to buy magnesium supplements to the exclusion of other good health habits.