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: None of the stories we reviewed gave readers sufficient information on the cost of the research scans used in the study. This story includes a comment from a researcher saying that increased use of this type of brain scan would bring the “high cost” down, but it doesn’t provide an estimate of the current cost or any comparison to alternative methods of assessing reading ability or other features of dyslexia. We will give this story a satisfactory rating because it portrays this research as providing information for researchers seeking to understand dyslexia, rather than offering important direct benefits to individuals. However, most of the story is about what it is like to live with dyslexia. These anecdotes have little or nothing to do with the research. The list of celebrities who may have or had dyslexia also seems irrelevant and distracting. Then the story tosses in discussion of a study that looked at correlations between dyslexia and spatial skills; again, unrelated to the topic of the primary study reported here. The jumble of extraneous personal tales and other research muddles the point of the story. MRI brain scans are generally considered to present little physical risk, so the issue here is really the potential negative effects of the information the test produces. At least the story raises that issue by including comments from parents who worry that this sort of scanning could further stigmatize children who have trouble reading or writing. This story fails to point out that the “children” studied were not beginning readers, but teenagers who were already identified as having dyslexia and may have been involved in special reading programs for many years. It also fails to mention several of the caveats and limitations that the researchers noted in their journal article, including the possibility that misclassification of the participants based on their initial testing could affect the results. In other words, rather than actually improving during the study, it is possible some of the teens were actually better readers from the beginning, but just scored low on the baseline tests. Nevertheless, the story appropriately describes this study as helping researchers to understand the disease, rather than evaluating the clinical usefulness of brain scans. Also, one paragraph deep in the story highlights the preliminary nature of the research; specifically that the study included only 25 participants with dyslexia, “which is too small a sample size to prove anything.” It also notes that the study did not look at whether different varieties or reading instruction or other interventions might have had some effect and it includes a comment from an independent expert about the lack of data on instruction or other factors that could influence reading ability. The story would have been better if the alert to the preliminary nature of the study had been near the top, rather than buried near the end. The story refers to estimates that between 5 percent and 20 percent of the population has dyslexia. Unlike the Reuters story we also reviewed, this story provides a useful definition of dyslexia as “a condition that, broadly speaking, hinders a person’s ability to interpret language.”  The story does include independent experts. Although it does not discuss conflicts of interest, the authors of the main study declared no conflicts and reported that their study was supported by a number of grants from public agencies and foundations, though the baseline assessment of the participants was supported by a company that markets treatment interventions for people with dyslexia. One troubling point: the story describes one person who claims to have been helped by “training at a learning development center.” If this individual was associated with the company that helped sponsor this research, the story should have disclosed that connection. The study authors wrote that although standardized tests did not accurately predict changes in reading ability during the study period, “it is possible that there are behavioral measures not included here that may predict outcome.” Indeed, their journal article specifically referred to other research into clinical testing that did appear to predict how children with poor reading skills responded to teaching. The story fails to make clear that the study reported here did not attempt to make a comprehensive comparison of the predictive power of scans and other methods of assessing children with reading problems. The story notes that the type of scan used in this study is not widely available. The story implies that this study is the first to suggest young people with dyslexia use a certain area of the right hemisphere of their brains more than average readers. Actually, the study authors pointed out that their research provides some additional data to support the findings of many other studies of differences between the brains of people with dyslexia and those who read normally. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Dyslexia: Scanning the brain for clues
Example Output: This story is the best of the three we reviewed about a study indicating that brain scans may help researchers understand brain structure and function in people who have dyslexia. It refrains from claiming that the work has near-term clinical implications for people who have trouble reading and writing. However, the bulk of the story is made up of personal stories about living with dyslexia, while key features of this research are buried deep in the story or left out entirely. What’s more, the story describes the study participants as “children,” thus leaving readers with the impression that researchers looked at beginning readers, when they actually were studying teenagers who presumably had been dealing with dyslexia for many years. In addition, the story tosses in a discussion of an unrelated study of dyslexia and spatial skills. Even people with advanced reading skills are likely to come away from this story befuddled about the scope, findings and implications of the research. Good reading skills are fundamental to educational, social and financial success. Dyslexia is a type of reading disability characterized by difficulties in word recognition, spelling and decoding. Most studies suggest early intervention is important, but little is known about why some children respond better than others. This research suggests that brain scans can provide insight to underlying mechanisms of dyslexia and perhaps help track and refine interventions that could be tailored to individuals. But for readers to understand the value of this study, stories must clearly describe the research and its implications.

Example Input: Paragraph: The story devotes its second paragraph to cost, including how that cost may differ depending on whether patients have insurance. Well done. This is a really close one. The story does a lot of things well here. It notes that, in one trial, there was no difference in the benefits between Xofluza and existing flu treatment drug oseltamivir (better known as Tamiflu). However, it does not actually quantify the benefits associated with Xofluza. Instead, the story states that it “may alleviate some symptoms and shorten the time patients feel sick.” We approve of the cautious language used throughout the story, but we like to see quantified benefits in instances where the information is available. In this case, an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September reported that Xofluza reduced the “time to alleviation of symptoms” by a mean of 25-38 hours, compared to placebo (the difference depended on the age group of the patient). Ergo, a not satisfactory rating here. The story addresses this issue head on, earning it a solid satisfactory rating from us. One point that would have made it even stronger would have been to note that the company selling Xofluza warns that pregnant women and nursing mothers may want to avoid the drug, as it is not known whether the drug may harm the fetus or if it would pass into breastmilk for nursing mothers. The story does a good job of describing the supporting evidence clearly and concisely. No disease mongering here. In fact, the story provides good context on the risks posed by influenza. The story incorporates input from two sources at the FDA, but the information appears to stem from an FDA statement. Information from pharmaceutical companies is clearly marked, but we really look for news stories to incorporate input from independent sources — beyond what may be available in a news release. The story addresses the similarities (and differences) to other drugs that address flu symptoms, particularly oseltamivir (Tamiflu). The story notes that Xofluza has received FDA approval. As noted above, the drugs similarities and differences to existing pharmaceutical treatment options was laid out clearly. The news peg here was FDA’s approval of the drug, which is also made clear. The work goes well beyond what you would find in any news release. We particularly applaud the story’s discussion of viruses developing resistance to antiviral drugs. Claim: F.D.A. Approves New Drug for Flu
Example Output: This story is one of two we are reviewing that focuses on FDA’s approval of a drug designed to speed patient recovery from flu symptoms (the second story is from ABC News). The drug is baloxavir marboxil, marketed under the trade name Xofluza. This New York Times story hits most of the points that we want to see in a story about a new drug. The criteria that we use at HealthNewsReview.org to review health-related news stories were not developed in a vacuum. Rather, these are the criteria we feel are essential to allow patients and health care providers to make informed decisions about diagnosis and treatment options. While we do ding it on a couple things, the story does not exaggerate the findings, and provides people with the fundamental details they need to be informed patients. We were especially pleased that this story did not perpetuate misinformation that’s developed around this drug — that is, that it could help reduce transmission of the virus. To date, there is no evidence to show that as a benefit.

Example Input: Paragraph: A right lateral view chest x-ray of a healthy lung is seen in an undated handout photo. REUTERS/DCD/Dr. Thomas Hooten/Handout Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, is the fourth-leading cause of death in the United States and the world and is on the rise. There is no cure. The researchers found that a master gene called NRF2, which turns on other genes involved in protecting the lungs from pollution and cigarette smoke, was not working properly in smokers with advanced COPD, which affects 210 million people worldwide. And they said a compound found in broccoli might help correct this problem. “This work clearly demonstrates that a decline in our antioxidant system is involved in progression of COPD, which could also be the cause for other environmental disease,” Shyam Biswal of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine said in a statement. There are no treatments for COPD, a condition that includes emphysema, chronic bronchitis and some types of serious chronic asthma. Smoking is by far the leading cause of COPD, but environmental factors such as pollution play a role. In earlier studies, Biswal found that mice with poorly working NRF2 genes developed severe emphysema. His current study in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine looked at tissue samples of smokers with COPD and those without it. They found that the lungs of people with COPD had decreased levels of antioxidants that were regulated by the NRF2 gene. The sicker the patients, the lower the levels they found. But they also found that sulforaphane, a compound that occurs naturally in broccoli and wasabi, was able to restore the function of the NRF2 gene in human tissue. “These are the keys we are looking for in terms of having a more specific intervention,” Dr. John Heffner, past president of the American Thoracic Society, said in a telephone interview. “If we can discover the primary triggers that induce lung damage in smokers we will be able to slow the progression of this highly lethal condition,” Heffner said. He said the study, which he was not involved in, pointed to a genetic switch that turns off the body’s defenses against cigarette smoke and leads to lung damage. “Compounds that target that switch may be able to turn it back on to prevent the progression of COPD.”   He said it was too early to suggest eating broccoli would cure COPD. Other clinical trials of antioxidants have failed to show a benefit. “We are hoping to initiate human trials with these more specific compounds that target what has been shown to be the most important antioxidant system,” he said. Claim: Gene switch malfunctioning in chronic lung disease.
Example Output:
Smokers who have chronic lung disease are much more likely to have a poorly working antioxidant defense system than other smokers, a finding that may lead to new treatments, U.S. researchers said on Friday.