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: Given that the premise of the story is explaining there is no benefit to taking these supplements, we’ll rate this N/A. That said, it would have been interesting to explore the cost-savings for people if they decide to stop buying calcium and vitamin D. The story does a good job of letting readers know that there was no statistically significant benefit to taking calcium and vitamin D, based on the researchers’ systematic review of the evidence. The story cited one instance of harms, saying: “… for people who started out with at least 20 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, adding more vitamin D through supplements was associated with a greater risk of hip fractures.” We also wanted to see a mention of potential harms of calcium, such as kidney stones. Another common side effect is excess gas and one potential harm of high doses is cardiovascular complications such as heart attack. The story hits some key points including the number of studies reviewed, potential confounding factors accounted for, and details about selection criteria. For instance, women on hormone replacement therapy, for whom there’s evidence for the benefits of supplementation were excluded from the current analysis. That’s a key point for postmenopausal women reading the story. Also the story makes clear that this study examined older adults who live in their own homes and therefore does not apply to older adults who live in nursing homes or similar institutions. Well done. The story does not engage in disease-mongering. It correctly states the risk of broken bones in people over age 50 and the risk of death in older people who break a hip. This story will also help reduce over-treatment and over-medicating of older adults, which is common. The only source quoted for the article is the study itself. There are no quotes from independent expert sources. The story references getting calcium from one’s diet and getting vitamin D from sun exposure. We think it’s safe to presume that readers know that vitamin and mineral supplements are widely available. The story does a good job of making clear previous claims of benefit from calcium and vitamin D supplementation. This large meta-analysis will provide some clarity of the questions surrounding using these supplements for bone health. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Do you take calcium and vitamin D to protect your bones? A new study says it doesn't help

Output: Getty Images Reporting on a large review study, this Los Angeles Times article walks readers through the conflicting advice and evidence about calcium and vitamin D supplements. Both compounds play roles in bone health and the routinely accepted claim is that supplementation can help prevent bone breaks in older people. This new meta-analysis shows that claim is not supported by evidence: not for calcium pills, vitamin D pills, or the two in combination. The story is well-done on several points, particularly on explaining how this study worked and what it found. The story would have been stronger if it had included some commentary from experts in the field who were not associated with the study to help put this recent, apparently strong finding, into context for readers. More than two million so-called fragility fractures — breaks that wouldn’t happen in a younger person, often related to the bone loss of osteoporosis–occur every year in the US. Preventing fragility means attending to bone health, which currently centers around exercise and getting enough calcium and vitamin D. Supplementation is an easy way to make sure a person takes in enough of the mineral and the vitamin, and yet, it’s important to understand whether routine supplementation actually prevents bone breaks.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Cost is not a component of this story. That is an issue, as the story compares three weight-loss surgical options for morbidly obese individuals, and readers might well be interested in the economics. Also, it would be useful to discuss the costs of not having surgery in the matched population. The story does a nice job of making the weight loss comparisons—both over time for gastric bypass surgery and across surgical options—clear. The story makes no mention of harms. Bariatric procedures can lead to an array of complications that are worth considering. And on the flip side, it’s worth noting that research also has indicated that bariatric surgery can both extend quantity and quality of life when compared to not having surgery. Details of the two-part study conducted here are included and clearly described. And we were also pleased to see several study limitations discussed: “For example, the study included mostly men, so the findings may not apply to women.” That said, we do wish more had been said about the study participants, such as average body mass index levels before and after the surgeries. Morbid obesity is a major and growing health issue with frustratingly few treatment options. Sources are clearly identified, along with information about their links to the study itself (one scientist was the study’s lead researcher, and the other quoted in the story was independent). This is another strong point of the story. The study compared the longer term weight-loss outcomes of the three primary bariatric surgical procedures. The story doesn’t make it readily clear how accessible these surgeries are, and who is a good candidate for one. Typically, these procedures are for people over a certain body-mass index, for example. And insurance coverage may or may not pay for it. The story is clear that this study contributes to a growing set of data about long-term weight-loss effects of these surgeries. Duke Medicine issued a news release, and the HealthDay story does not rely solely on it. Claim: Weight-Loss Surgery Sheds Pounds Long Term

Output: Bariatric surgeries have been identified as perhaps the most successful means for people who are morbidly obese to lose weight, and use of these procedures is increasing, according to the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Information about whether the weight-loss results last, and for how long, is a useful addition to the growing medical literature on these surgeries. The study described here by HealthDay speaks directly to the issue in a couple of well-designed analyses, and the story does a good job of explaining both the methods and the results. Missing from an otherwise good narrative is information about the risks of these procedures, as well as their costs and overall availability to the general public. Obesity is a major health issue in the United States, and the use of bariatric surgical procedures is being used increasingly for those who are morbidly obese. Knowing how long people keep the weight off–and by how much—is useful for those deciding whether to opt into the procedure. Also of interest is if the health benefits, such as remission of type 2 diabetes, were sustained, though this study didn’t appear to investigate that.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The researchers, from Peking University’s School of Life Sciences and the Institut Pasteur of Shanghai under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, cautioned that their study looked only at a limited range of data, and said follow-up studies of larger data sets were needed to better understand the virus’s evolution. The preliminary study found that a more aggressive strain of the new coronavirus associated with the outbreak in Wuhan accounted for about 70% of analyzed cases, while 30% were linked to a less aggressive type. The prevalence of the more aggressive virus type decreased after early January 2020, they said. “These findings strongly support an urgent need for further immediate, comprehensive studies that combine genomic data, epidemiological data, and chart records of the clinical symptoms of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” they wrote in a study published on Tuesday in the National Science Review, the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Experts not directly involved in the study said its findings were interesting, but cautioned against drawing firm conclusions from such preliminary research. “It’s difficult to confirm studies like this without a direct side-by-side comparison of pathogenicity and spread in, ideally, an animal model, or at least a greatly extended epidemiological study,” said Stephen Griffin, a professor and expert in infection and immunity at Britain’s Leeds University. Also on Wednesday, one of China’s top medical associations said that the median incubation period of the coronavirus is five to seven days and the maximum 14 days. The remarks by Du Bin, chairman of the critical care medical branch of the Chinese Medical Association, mark the most conclusive assessment of the virus’ incubation period by a government-affiliated medical organization to date. The revelations came amid a fall in new coronavirus cases following crippling restrictions imposed on the world’s second largest economy to stop its spread, including transport suspensions and the extension of the Lunar New Year holiday. Mainland China had 119 new confirmed cases of coronavirus on Tuesday, the National Health Commission said, down from 125 the previous day, in a broad trend that has seen numbers of new cases fall from the middle of February. The total number of cases on the mainland has now reached 80,270. The number of deaths rose by 38 to bring the total toll for mainland China to 2,981 by March 3. All but one new death occurred in Hubei province, the epicenter of the outbreak. With the number of new daily infections overseas now exceeding new cases in China, Chinese officials have begun to seek ways to control the spread of the virus outside of China and guard against future outbreaks. Authorities have asked overseas Chinese hoping to return home to reconsider their travel plans, while cities across the country have set up quarantine rules for those entering from high-risk places. An infected person is known to have arrived in China from Iran, one of the virus’ new hotspots, last week. China is encouraging domestic producers of medical protective equipment to export protective suits to meet overseas demand as the virus spreads, Cao Xuejun, an official with China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology said in a press briefing in Beijing on Wednesday. China’s health authorities are also studying setting up emergency reserves for medical resources and protective materials, Mao Qunan, an official at China’s National Health Commission said at the same briefing. Claim: Researchers identify two coronavirus strains as China cases dwindle.


Output: Scientists in China studying the outbreak of disease caused by the new coronavirus say they have found that two main strains of the virus are circulating in humans and causing infections.