Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following example:
Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Solution: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Reason: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

Now, solve this instance: Paragraph: Surgery to remove a healthy ovary,storage of that tissue for as long as a decade,and surgical reimplantation all involvesubstantial cost. The story doesn't help the reader begin to put this in context. If the patient requires IVF, in-vitro fertilization, when she hopes to conceive again, the costs will go much higher. Almost half of the pregnancies in the study required IVF, according to the story. The story let the readers down here. (Here's more about the high costs of infertility treatment from an advocacy group.) The story arguably overstates the impact of transplantation, allowing a researcher to claim that "many" women who survive cancer will be fertile because of this surgery when the story clearly states that less than a third of the women in this tiny study had a good outcome. But since the main thrust of this criterion is numbers, and the story does provide them, we'll give the benefit of the doubt here. However, we wish that the story had pushed back harder against this framing "some" or "a minority" of women would have been a better descriptor here than "many." The story just barely mentions the risk which it says is not increased of a return of cancer. Since that's likely the main concern with this procedure, we'll go ahead and award a Satisfactory. But we'd add that women who havetheir own ovarian tissue removed and then reimplanted in a new surgery could potentially have complications ofthose procedures (all surgeries carry some risk). No such complications are addressed in the study that's the basis for this story, and it's not clear if adverse effects (beyond cancer recurrence) were tracked by the study authors. We wish the story had asked about, and covered, those potential harms. The story does a good job of outlining the evidence. We are glad that the story included details about how many patients required fertility treatments after receiving their own tissue back years after its removal. There was no disease mongering. The story quoted two of the authors of the original study, Jensen and Andersen, as well as a third researcher, Hershlag, who appears to be independent of that group. The inclusion of multiple sources is a strong point in the coverage. The story notes that instead of the removal of the entire ovary and storage, it is possible patients could choose embryo cryopreservation/freezing. A physician is quoted as follows: "The pregnancy rate with frozen embryos is close to 50 percent, and results are getting better," he said, referring to another option for women hoping for a future pregnancy. "It remains to be seen which method is better." We'd add that embryo cryopreservation/ freezing requires a woman to have a partner or use donor spermAND to undergo IVF a lot to doin the context of cancer treatment. Freezing unfertilized eggs is another approach where there's the option to attempt to fertilize them later. The story does not say whether this approach, which requires a lot of planning ahead for a cancer patient, is widely available outside of research centers. The research was done in Denmark and it's not clear if it's offered here in the United States or how widely. Apparently, it isn't new to remove an ovary and freeze it. Some of the patients in the study had that done 15 years ago. The story establishes this and explains that the study is new in that it reports on longer-term outcomes. The story did not appear to rely on a news release, and had independent comments. Claim: Ovarian Tissue Transplant Can Help Some Women Have Kids After Cancer Treatment Researchers in Denmark report a success rate of about 30 percent
Student:
A small European study showed 31 percent of cancer patients had successful pregnancies after they received transplants of their own (once removed and frozen) ovarian tissue. A substantial number required additional measures, such as in-vitro fertilization. Though solid overall, the coverage would have been measurably improved with inclusion of a few details, including information about costs and specifics about whether/where the procedure is available in the United States. We also quibble with one researcher's description of the size of the benefit. The suggestion that "many" women will get pregnant using this procedure is somewhat misleading. The procedure led to a successful pregnancy in less than a third of the women who received it. Having children is an emotional and cultural touchstone for both men and women. Cancer patients have long suffered infertility because of harsh drugs and radiation therapies. This study raises hopes that by taking some ovarian tissue before treatment, some women can eventually get that organ re-implanted and become pregnant.