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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The significant costs of both drugs were mentioned. Nice job. Good job describing the benefits reported in the two drug studies. The two papers present a bewildering array of statistics. This story did a nice job distilling the information into a couple of very understandable sentences. Good job explaining signifcant potential harms of both drugs – something competitors didn’t do at all. Nice job, including linking (in the online version) to the papers in the New England Journal of Medicine. No disease-mongering of melanoma. Several independent sources cited. The story adequately explained the comparisons between both new drugs and the older dacarbazine chemo drug. Vemurafenib was described as experimental and as “expected to be approved by the FDA within a few months.”  Ipilimumab was explained to be approved in March and already on the market. The relative novelty of both drugs was well explained. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Drugs Show Promise Slowing Advanced Melanoma

Output: The story made strong, clear attempts to report in a restrained manner, using terms/phrases such as:  “notable progress” “do not cure” “might add two to several moths to expected lifespans” “To be sure, more than half of patients with metastatic melanoma would not be helped all that much by either drug.”   Stories about cancer – perhaps especially melanoma because of its treatment challenges – should balance promise with realistic context. This story did a better job of that than the competitors’ efforts we reviewed.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Alexis Shapiro suffered damage to her pituitary gland, which helps regulate weight, as a result of the brain disease. She has gained about 140 pounds (63.5 kgs) in less than two years because of the problem, her mother said. Her extreme excess of body fat is clinically defined as morbid obesity. “It has been heartbreaking for her and for us. She cannot do the things she used to love,” Jennifer Shapiro, her mother, said on the fundraising site GoFundMe. The mother said she is seeking about $50,000 for life-saving surgery to reduce the size of her daughter’s stomach because the family’s insurance company will not pay for the procedure unless the patient is at least 18 or has achieved full bone growth. Dr. Thomas Inge, a specialist in pediatric obesity at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, told NBC News that Alexis could receive the surgery at the hospital where he works within six weeks now that the funding appears to be in place. “Alexis will be seen this week in Cincinnati, and the preparations for surgery will be made at that time,” Inge told Reuters by email. Claim: Donors pitch in to pay for surgery for extremely obese Texas girl.

Output: Nearly 1,500 donors have pledged more than $62,000 to help pay for surgery for a 12-year-old Texas girl diagnosed as morbidly obese due to a brain disease that is causing her to gain about two pounds a week.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Since this story doesn’t make claims about efficacy, costs don’t seem applicable. We give this story a satisfactory score, but the story could have helped readers understand why measuring surrogate markers such as homocysteine levels can be different than tracking true outcomes such as heart attack or stroke. Here, the surrogate endpoint (homocysteine levels) “improved,” but the real endpoint – heart attack and stroke – did not. There is no discussion of any harms associated with consumption of vitamin B supplements, although such harms would occur from vitamin B intake unlike that studied, so this gets a satisfactory grade. Two of the three studies referred to in the journal article are detailed; a brief reference is given for the third. In addition to the discussion of the studies, a quote was pulled from an editorial in the journal that published the studies. No other treatment options for lowering risk of heart attacks or strokes are mentioned. It’s clear from the story that B vitamins have been in use for some time by many people for these purposes. It’s clear from the story that B vitamins have been in use for some time by many people for these purposes. We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release. Claim: Study: Heart attacks not cut by B vitamins


Output: This story reports on several recent studies that fail to find benefit in terms of heart attack and stroke risk from the consumption of B vitamins by people with established vascular disease. Though the article was factually correct, it missed a golden opportunity to educate consumers about the difference between a disease outcome and a surrogate marker of the disease. In other words, homocysteine levels may be lowered by vitamin B use, but that may not make any difference on the outcome you really care about – risk of heart attack or stroke.