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.
One example is below.
Q: 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
A: 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.
Rationale: 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.
Q: Paragraph: The cost of anti-depressant medications are not mentioned. Cost of generic prozac is about $16/month. Branded versions are about $80-120/month The story does provide absolute data on the positive benefit of these medication for several mood disorders. The story also presents the number needed to harm. The story presents an adequate risk to benefit comparison by providing the data. The story focuses on only one potential harm of treatment, i.e. suicide and suicidal ideation. The story does not list the side effects of these medications (stomach problems, insomnia, irritability, and mania in some children). While these medications are considered safe even with the FDA warning there is little long-term data on their safety in these groups. The story gives an overview of the meta-analysis and explains why the results of this new study may differ from earlier studies on which an FDA warning of increased suicidal behavior in children taking anti-depressants were based. The story provides the number needed to harm as well as other quantitative information on the benefits and risks of anti-depressants as they relate to improved mood and risk of suicidal thoughts and feelings. The story simply reports the results of a review of many studies looking at suicidal behavior in children and adults who were prescribed anti-depressant medications. The story would be improved by giving information on frequency of the conditions discussed, but there is NO disease mongering The story interviews one of the lead authors of the study. However we are not told if he has financial ties with the pharmaceutical makers of anti-depressant medications. The JAMA article gives conflict of interest info and there are potential conflicts that are not reported in the news story. The version of the story we reviewed was in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. This version does not provide other treatment options for children and teenagers who have anxiety disorders and/or depression such as psychotherapy, especially cognitive behavioral therapy. But the original AP story did include an interview with a Duke expert, unconnected with the JAMA study, who commented on cognitive behavioral therapy. The story does not provide information about the availability of anti-depressant medications for young children and teenagers. However, since this story deals with possible risks from these drugs, this criterion seems less important in this story. Anti-depressant medication treatment is children is a relatively new phenomenon. The story does not mention this. However, the focus of the story was to provide a more up-to-date report of the risk of suicidal ideation and behavior in children taking these medications. Data from this recent systemic review suggest the risk is still there, but not as great as previously thought. The original AP story had interviews with two experts, one of them not connected with the research. So it's safe to assume it did not rely solely or largely on a news release. But the Cleveland Plain Dealer, in which we picked up the story, cut out the quotes from this independent source. Claim: Antidepressants' risks to children slim, study says
A:
The story provides the reader with a comparison of anti-depressants' effectiveness and the risk of suicidal thoughts or actions in young children and teenagers. The story describes results of a recently published meta-analysis and explains why the results of this new study may differ from data on which an FDA warning of increased suicidal behavior in children taking anti-depressants was based. The story provides the number needed to harm as well as other quantitative information on the benefits of anti-depressants for particular mood disorders. The story focuses on only one potential harm of treatment, i.e. suicide and suicidal ideation. It would have been reasonable to report on other commonside effects of these medications (e.g. stomach problems, insomnia, irritability, and mania in some children). While these medications are considered safe even with the FDA warning there is little long-term data on their safety in these groups. The original version of the story by the Associated Press included several items left out by the Cleveland Plain Dealer when it picked up the story: an interview with a second, independent expert source; mention of other treatment options such as psychotherapy, especially cognitive behavioral therapy. The story interviews one of the lead authors of the study. However we are not told if he has financial ties with the pharmaceutical makers of anti-depressant medications. The JAMA article gives conflict of interest info and there are potential conflicts that are not reported in the news story. Other clinical and patient perspectives are needed to provide balance to the story and as a means of discussing this treatment option for children and teenagers.