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: Costs are mentioned reasonably early in the story, and with specificity. This was good to see. Benefits of these tests are touted, but not quantified. An officer of the National Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance, an advocacy group, testifies that the outcomes of women who have surgery from a gynecologic oncologist “are much better.” But we don’t know what that means. Is it longer survival? Later the story explains that combining the two blood tests with assessment by a clinician “better determined the patients who should be referred to a [gynecological oncologist], identifying well over 90 percent of the women who actually had cancer.”  (Note that this statistic reflects only referral to a gyn-onc, not patient survival.) But how does that compare to the standard assessment tools? A 2016 study described as publication “of the first clinical utility data” demonstrating that use of OVA1 resulted in referral of ovarian patients to gynecologic oncologists offers similar outcomes but is not mentioned in the story. We’re told that experts fear that these tests could lead to unnecessary surgery or delayed diagnosis, and that’s sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. The story could have delved into a bit more of the specifics: What is the evidence for these concerns? What are the false positive and false negative rates? These details are useful because the point of the story is that clinicians are not using these tests to try to improve outcomes of ovarian cancer patients. Are the possible debits–or uncertainties driven by lack of clinical data–contributing to these decisions? There isn’t sufficient information on the evidence behind these tests. The FDA has approved ROMA and OVA1 for use, but the studies that led to that decision are not discussed. Nor is there sufficient discussion of why the physician groups that write guidelines haven’t endorsed the tests. Their concerns are raised, but the evidence is not presented or analyzed. A late diagnosis of ovarian cancer is way too common, and the outcome is grim. At the same time, the anecdotes seem to highlight the sad aspect of the disease without necessarily providing a relevant case in which the tests described would have helped (any more than a basic blood test would have). The companies responsible for developing and marketing these two tests are front and center in this story, with scientists affiliated with the companies clearly identified. At least two sources in the story—one of them a scientist affiliated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network—appear to be independent of the companies. The story makes it clear that no effective early detection screening test exists. Existing strategies—the CA125 blood test and vaginal ultrasound—are mentioned and then discounted, in part via a personal narrative of a young woman who received a late diagnosis of cancer. While data-driven specifics aren’t included on why standard methods aren’t sufficient, this is enough to rate Satisfactory. A direct comparison of survival stemming from existing diagnostic tests relative to survival stemming from ROMA and OVA1 would have strengthened the story. If those numbers aren’t available, that should have been pointed out. The story makes it clear that the two blood tests have been available since 2009. The story mentions that the tests are combinations of existing tests with a “proprietary” formula (essentially a risk prediction tool) to translate the results to likelihood of cancer. But, the article should have talked about whether the tests, other than CA-125, have been used before. This appears to be an enterprise story, and does not rely on a news release. Claim: Ovarian cancer blood tests: Available, not widely used
Example Output: This is a story about the apparent underuse of two blood tests—ROMA and OVA1—that are FDA approved to help clinicians decide whether surgery to investigate abnormal growths should be performed by a gynecologic oncologist (“gyn-onc”) trained to remove malignant ovarian cancer, rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist or a general surgeon. The gist of the story is that the tests have not been widely adopted in the ensuing years, “largely because they haven’t been recommended by the physician groups that write the care guidelines.” The story hit on a lot of important notes–it told readers the cost of these tests, and it included comments from independent sources. What is not clear is the extent to which clinical evidence supports the increased use of the two tests. We’re told they accurately picked up about 90 percent of cancer cases. But we’re not told how that compares to standard methods of detection. As the story notes, surviving ovarian cancer is an uphill battle–it is often a deadly disease caught too late. Any procedure that increases the probability of survival is worth careful consideration.

Example Input: Paragraph: A 34-year-old woman from Loudi city in the central province of Hunan confessed to poisoning the yoghurt drink before delivering to the students, Xinhua said on Saturday. It said the woman was suspected to be suffering from a mental disorder. Three children were in serious condition but their lives were not in danger, Xinhua said. Investigations were going on. There have been several attacks on schools in China in recent years while at the same time, food safety has become a contentious issue with a rising number of food-poisoning cases due in part to lax safety standards at small factories. Claim: Nineteen students sick in China from poisoned yoghurt.
Example Output: Nineteen primary school children in China have been hospitalized after drinking yoghurt said to be laced with rat poison and herbicide, the Xinhua state news said.

Example Input: Paragraph: Although this trial was a preliminary experiment, the proposed intervention is clearly defined as two office visits and two telephone calls with a nurse, so it should have been possible to estimate the cost. Since one purpose of testing this sort of brief intervention is to offer lower-cost alternatives to established behavioral treatment for insomnia, readers should have been given some estimate of the relative costs of the interventions. The story tells readers that 55 percent of people in the active intervention group no longer met the criteria for insomnia after four weeks. However, readers are not told how the researchers defined insomnia. Was it a complete inability to sleep? How frequently did the participants have trouble sleeping? How much more did they sleep after treatment? Without these and other details, it is difficult to get a feel for what effect the treatment had. While this story reported how many people needed to be treated in order to make a difference for at least one… a statistic we encourage journalists to use more… the story reported twice as many people benefited as the researchers actually said they saw. The researchers wrote that one person either had remission (no more insomnia) or response (significantly less insomnia) for every 2.4 people treated. But the story says that for every 2.4 participants treated one responded and one overcame insomnia. We won’t hold this story to this criterion because neither the journal article on the test nor an accompanying commentary noted any adverse events. However, the story could have pointed out that a trial this small generally would miss all but the most common problems. Also, the story could have pointed out that until further evidence is developed, it is not know for certain how this type of intervention compares with alternatives. If it turns out that for some people this treatment is less effective than alternatives, then prescribing it would mean leaving them at greater risk of being harmed by insomnia. The story gives a brief description of the experiment and some of the main outcomes that the researchers measured. The story would have been better if it told readers more about the limitations of this small trial, including what sort of further testing would be needed to determine if the intervention would work for people in the general population, rather than just those who match the profiles of the individuals who volunteered to participate in this test. The story compared this brief intervention to more established behavioral therapy, without noting the pitfalls of trying to compare results from different trials. The story did not tell readers that there is ongoing debate about the best way to measure the results of insomnia studies. The story provides estimates of how many people complain of insomnia. It also portrays this intervention as an alternative to existing treatments, rather than an effort to expand treatment to more people. The story includes comments from the author of a commentary article that appeared in the Archives of Internal Medicine along with the research article. In the disclosure section of their article, some of the researchers reported ties to pharmaceutical companies, but since this trial tested a non-drug approach and was funded by public agency and academic grants, it seems reasonable to consider the industry links as not being relevant to this study. We will credit this story for discussing the alternatives of sleeping pills and cognitive behavioral therapy. Although there was no reference to other less-intense non-drug approaches that clinicians may recommend for dealing with insomnia, there was a comment at the end of the story that offered some basic advice that readers could use on their own. The story says this form of “brief behavioral treatment for insomnia is not yet generally available”. It also described this study as being a first step in the process of making such an intervention available without making predictions about a timetable. This story suggests that there are no brief behavioral interventions available to people with insomnia. They story should not have suggested that the only alternative treatments are drugs and expensive cognitive behavioral therapy. The story does not appear to rely on a news release. Claim: Short-term pill-free therapy may help insomniacs
Example Output:
There is a lot to like about the possibility of a treatment for insomnia that doesn’t rely on sleeping pills or intense and expensive counseling by specialists. While this story paints a reasonably fair picture of a small test of a brief behavioral therapy for insomnia, the overall impression given to readers may have shaded toward emphasizing the positive while skipping over uncertainties, future research challenges and possible alternative approaches. Insomnia affects many people. And we are all subjected to a relentless flood of ads for sleeping pills. News of research into relatively simple approaches that don’t rely on drugs is understandably welcome, but stories about small, preliminary trials need to be frank about the limitations.