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.

Paragraph: We’ll give the story a “N/A” in this category since it makes clear early on that this research is in the earliest of stages, done in an animal model, and says clearly that clinical trials are a future hope. This is way too early to consider costs which, we assume, would be substantial. The story says the stem cell intervention extended the rodents’ lives “by 10-15% compared to untreated animals.”  At another point, it said, “the mice lived longer than controls, typically several months more, an increase of about 15%.” The story makes no mention of the potential harms that might arise from this approach. Since this has never been tested in humans, we have no idea what they risks are. The story needed to point this out. Theoretically, the stem cells would have to be delivered into human brains via injections, which would make the intervention incredibly risky and possibly a non-starter. In the original paper, the stem cells were injected into the hypothalamus of the mice using viruses as “vectors.” The researchers used lentiviruses, which are used often as vectors for research, but can be deadly in humans. Some discussion of this hurdle also was warranted. The story does a good job at explaining various aspects of the research and depicting the stages through which the research team drew its conclusions. It also is up front about this being animal research, so far untried in humans at even the earliest stages of clinical trials. Of note, the original paper mentions that this study was conducted in very few mice (total of about 20) and only in male mice. That detail would have been useful to include. One thing we wanted to point out that was problematic: The story said “if a similar extension was achieved in humans, a person with a life expectancy of 80 years could live to 92.” We have no idea how this may impact humans; the evidence doesn’t support that kind of speculation. The story doesn’t appear to commit disease mongering, though it could have pointed out that aging in and of itself is not a disease. The story does quote one source unaffiliated with the research and we didn’t detect any conflicts of interest. (The paper itself notes that the authors of the study have no conflicts of interests.) The story is all about basic research that suggests an approach that one day might slow, or possibly reverse, the aging process. There are no real alternatives available now to affect the aging process beyond lifestyle choices that might be healthier and appropriate treatments for illnesses that might otherwise shorten lifespans. It’s clear from the story that this research is preliminary. The story clearly says, “The next step is to create human neural stem cells in the lab for testing.”  It also states that, “Researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York hope to launch clinical trials of the procedure soon, but must first produce supplies of human neural stem cells in the lab which can be implanted into volunteers.” The story heralds this research as a “tour de force” and a “breakthrough.” Yet is it accurate in a news story to call anything done in animals a “breakthrough?” That word implies relevance to humans, and this is far from established in a mouse study. Studies in mice are essential but many of them fail to show similar evidence in humans. Likewise, stem cell research is often seen as a magic bullet for some conditions but there have been few cases where the preliminary hope/hype has born out. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Stem cell brain implants could 'slow ageing and extend life', study shows
This story describes some interesting but very early research into the mechanisms of aging and how they might be altered. The story made it clear that this was mouse-level research and has several hurdles to go before it’s ever tested in people. One weak point for the story was how the story assumed there might be benefits in people yet overlooked the potential risks. Considering this intervention involves inserting stem cells into the brain via the assistance of a viral strain known to be harmful to humans, it’s logical to assume there could be some safety concerns. It also overplayed the novelty here by quoting an expert who called it a “tour de force” and a “breakthrough.”  The desire to somehow combat aging seems inherent in humans. If there is a fairly straightforward “switch” that can control the aging process — and this story suggests so — then this would be a major advance. Yet we are looking at decades before this becomes a rigorous Phase III human trial, let alone a potential intervention in humans. The bottom line is: We are talking about approximately 20 male mice.

Paragraph: "State Sen. Frederica Wilson, a Miami Gardens Democrat running for the congressional seat now held by Kendrick Meek, is making an unusual boast about her accomplishments as a school board member: She says she introduced a ban on ""dirty dancing. ""Here is what she says on her campaign Web site: ""As a member of the Miami-Dade County School Board, Senator Wilson introduced reading labs and an African-American history curriculum into our schools, as well as a dirty-dancing ban in our community. ""She reiterated that claim in a March 9, 2009 press release announcing her campaign and on her Facebook page -- so there's no doubt she's against kids engaging in nasty booty moves. Pelvic thrusts aren't usually mentioned in congressional campaigns, so we jumped at the chance to explore whether she truly had introduced a ban. First, some background on dirty dancing. To many, the phrase conjurs up memories of the 1987 movie starring Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey. Remember the story? Grey plays a good girl nicknamed ""Baby"" who is on a family vacation at a Catskills resort. She stumbles upon a room where the working-class crew -- including Johnny, a beer-swigging-shirt-unbuttoned dance instructor played by Swayze -- are grinding their scantily clad bodies wrapped around each other in Do You Love Me. Johnny teaches Baby to dance -- among other, ahem, lessons -- and they fall in love. She learns some choreographed dance moves that are more of the gaze-into-each-other's-eyes variety than the make-your-grandma-blush type. In one famous scene, he lifts her by her hips as she is dripping wet in a lake. A decade later, the Miami-Dade school board took up the topic. There was no mention of the movie in the articles we found about the mid 1990s discussions, but there was plenty of harrumphing about kids dancing in sexually suggestive ways. ""I've seen it in little tiny elementary school children. I couldn't take it, "" Wilson said in a Nov. 19, 1995, Miami Herald article which stated that she asked school administrators to hold a meeting on the topic. ""I don't think it sets a good standard for our district. We cannot allow (the dancing kids) to degrade the school district or themselves."" In a 1997 op-ed, school board member Wilson said she was considering introducing a ban. ""It has been called 'dirty dancing,' but it's really nothing more than simulated sexual intercourse. Outrageously, too many folks involved with Dade County's public schools -- including teachers, administrators, and parents who ought to know better -- call it 'cheerleading,' 'marching,' or other types of school-sponsored student performance. Whatever it's called, it's vulgar and degrading. It has no place in our schools, on our playgrounds, or in our students' lives. So, imagine my disgust and dismay when I marched in Dade's Martin Luther King Day Parade earlier this year and saw Dade high school cheerleaders bumping and grinding their way down Martin Luther King Boulevard."" In a July 1997 news article, she was quoted saying, ""I've seen horrendous behavior. I saw a band member bend over and a female majorette come from behind and simulate actual intercourse. I almost passed out, but people in the stands were applauding. ""Rather than calling it a ""dirty dancing ban,"" it was known as ""Guideline 25B: Student dance performances and/or productions: Procedures for promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment. ""The board's explanation of the rule said that cheerleading, dance and band performances at events, performances or educational settings ""are essential to the establishment and maintenance of an atmosphere that fosters cultural and artistic exchanges. However the board recognizes that certain modes of dance are inappropriate, unsuited for immature audiences and may offend the community's sense of propriety rather than foster appropriate conduct that is consistent with school board rules and state statutes."" School board documents said the rule prohibited performances that depicted ""actual or simulated sexual intercourse (normal or deviate), masturbation, excretory functions and actual lewd exhibition of genitalia."" It's clear from news coverage and school board minutes that Wilson was the driving force behind the ban. School board minutes for the July 9, 1997, meeting state that Wilson proposed the rulemaking. The motion passed unanimously. On Aug. 27, 1997, the school board voted again in favor of the proposal. But there's still a bit of exaggeration in her statement: Wilson described this as a ban ""in our community"" when it strictly related to school-related groups or performances. She told us that was a reasonable description because ""the dirty dancing ban was on school bands and majorettes in the community. We have a lot of parades -- the MLK parade, different half time shows at football games in the community. I witnessed it -- a lot of forward-thrusting of the pelvic bone."" Clearly Wilson introduced the dirty dancing ban approved by the school board in 1997 and we don't doubt that school activities now have less forward-thrusting of the pelvic bone. But her claim that the ban would apply ""in our community"" is a little misleading. Some people might think her ban applied to the entire county, not just the schools." Claim: "Frederica Wilson Says she introduced a ban on ""dirty dancing."
Frederica Wilson says she banned dirty dancing

Paragraph: The story provides no discussion of how much this test might cost if and when it comes to market. The story states that the five key microRNA markers allowed doctors to predict with 85% accuracy which 52 of the children would have prolonged symptoms, compared to 64% accuracy for the standard concussion assessment survey doctors often use now (in conjunction with their own medical evaluations). But it’s not clear what “accuracy” means in this context. As discussed below, it would be more helpful to discuss the test’s false-negative and false-positive rates, since those statistics give readers a better sense as to whether the test results provide meaningful information. And it would be helpful to clarify exactly what benefit someone would derive from the test results, beyond knowing how long the concussion symptoms will endure. Readers might presume that this kind of testing will help avoid longer-term cognitive impairment resulting from concussions, but that would be a misconception. There’s no evidence that more testing leads to less long-term cognitive impairment. The story would have done well to point this out. The story does not directly address potential harms. The harms with screening tests are false-negative results–in this case, concluding a child doesn’t have a concussion when she really does–and false-positive results–concluding a child needs treatment when she doesn’t. The story does a fair job of describing the limitations of the research supporting use of the saliva test. First, the story notes that an editorial published with the study in JAMA Pediatric pointed out the small sample size (52), meaning additional large-scale studies would be required to determine whether the saliva test results would be reliable. The story also discusses the editorial’s warning that individuals with prolonged concussion symptoms are more likely than those with milder concussions to use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen, which could influence the presence of the microRNAs and thus confound the findings. One limitation the story didn’t point out was that all these children already had a clinical diagnosis of concussion. In a more real-world setting, where that hasn’t been confirmed, the accuracy of the test may be lowered. The story does not commit disease-mongering. However, one paragraph discussing data from the Centers for Disease Control could be viewed as conflating concussions with all traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). The story notes that CDC data showed 2.8 million TBI-related visits to the emergency room, hospitalizations and deaths in the United States in 2013. Following this figure immediately is a reference to two-thirds of concussions occurring in children and adolescents; the structure thus suggests that all 2.8 million TBIs were concussions. The story includes two independent sources: the JAMA Pediatrics editorial and a neurologist, Dr. Jeffrey Kutcher, who directs The Sports Neurology Clinic at The CORE Institute in Michigan. In addition, the story explains that Quadrant Biosciences, which is hoping to market a saliva test for concussions, provided part of the funding for the original study. It also notes that Kutcher is consulting for a company working on an alternative approach to testing for concussion severity using electroencephalograms (EEG). As noted earlier, the story explicitly compared accuracy rates for the saliva test versus the survey tool doctors currently use. In addition, the story mentioned that researchers also are testing for concussion-related biomarkers in blood, using EEG records and “exploring functional MRI techniques to look at the metabolic function of different areas of the brain.” The story discusses all of these approaches as preliminary investigations. The story quotes the lead author of the saliva test study as saying that many hospitals and clinics already use the technology that would be needed to assess microRNAs in saliva. This implies that the saliva test could be readily available to patients if further research confirmed the association between specific microRNAs and prolonged concussion symptoms. The story does not provide any specific discussion of how long it could take or how much further study would be needed before the saliva test would be available for use. However, the story does communicate that the saliva test is not yet available. As mentioned earlier, the story quotes the JAMA Pediatrics editorial that accompanied the study as saying that the saliva test “represents an advance in the science of sport-related concussions.” Thus, the test does appear to be a novel approach. The story includes a substantial amount of information not included in the Penn State Health news release about the study. Claim: Spit test may diagnose, predict duration of concussion in kids

CNN’s story describes a study that identified microRNA markers in the saliva of children and teens who’ve sustained a concussion; five of these biomarkers could be used in an algorithm to predict whether or not the youngsters’ concussions symptoms would subside within four weeks of their injury. The story did a good job explaining the study’s limitations, and describing similar tests under development–helping readers understand this is by no means the only method that’s being studied. We were also pleased to see independent sources and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. However, the story could have provided more information on the potential harms of screening tests, as well as expected costs. Concussions are a hot medical topic, as we explain in Communicating effectively about concussion research: 6 tips for writers. When it comes to screening tools, however, news outlets sometimes overlook the nuances. This CNN story, for example, didn’t discuss the potential downsides of false-positive and false-negative results.