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: 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 is here: 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.
Explanation: 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: Paragraph: This story does a good job of providingthe cost of theXTag respiratory panel, $300-400,and cost-related information. The testis relatively expensive but is also covered by insurance. The story presents several benefits of thexTag test. Itis 1) more sensitive and more comprehensive than currently available tests and diagnostic procedures, 2) it can address the problem of under-diagnosis of the flu in vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly, 3) it can inform treatment decisions by potentially reducing the inappropriate use of antibiotics while indicating when they might be beneficial. An important caveat isthat it is not known whether diagnosing these viruses improves outcomes, i.e. decreased use of antibiotics, fewer hospitalizations, fewer deaths. The twomain drawbacks of the xTag test, that it is expensive and cantake up to a day or two to get the results, are presented. Expense is an importantissue given the volume of acute febrile illnesses in children, particularly if this test were given routinely in an outpatient setting. In addition, if the processing time at the specific location is is too long, the test may not have any practical benefit in the treatment decision window. This article providescomprehensiveinformation inan easily understandable way. For example, it provides thecontext/relevance of the xTag test by summarizing results published in a prestigious medical journal, describing how the test is administered to a patient andthe laboratory process used to analyze the sample. It also explains the key pieces of a diagnostic test, sensitivity and specificity. This article is topicalbecause the winter flu season is arriving. However,clarification of the type of patient and situation where this test would be most beneficial was missing. This test would be beneficial forchildren seen in emergency rooms or hospitalized with acute respiratoryillnesses,where making the correct diagnosis as rapidly as possible is essential. The test is generally not needed for most children inthe primary care setting whopresent with symptoms of a short-term flu. In these cases, good physician judgement will determine whether an acute illness is viral in most instances, precluding the need for antibiotics. Although the example of influenza treatment (as a 'missed opportunity') was given, this treatment would only decrease symptoms by 1-2 days, which would not be significant formost healthy children. This story draws information from a variety of credible sources, including the FDA, aresearcher who published resultsindicating that the flu is under-diagnosed in children,and an independent emergency room physician. Information from the manufacturer is also given. This article covers all of the bases on treatment diagnosis and treatment option. The flu can be diagnosed based upon clinical observations of signs and symptoms or by other availableflu tests. Treatment options, flu medicine, antibiotics or no treatment, are clearly indicated. This story provides good information about availability. The Xtag test is mainly used in hospitals and emergency rooms but can also be done in the primary care setting. Other important information on variability of the length of time needed to process the test, from hours to 1-2 days, was also provided. The xTag test is novel and the article handles this nicely. It is the only FDA approved product that can detect multiple viral strains that can cause acute respiratory diseases. Because an independent source was quoted, it appears the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release. Claim: A single test to detect many winter ailments
Solution:
This story does a good job of presenting accurate, comprehensive informationabout the xTag Respiratory Viral Panel. The xTagtest was recently approved by the FDA and is the first of its kind to provide early detectionof multiple respiratory viruses. These virusescan cause acute respiratory infections such as the common cold, influenza, bronchitis, croup, and pneumonia. The article succinctly describes the complex technology employed by thetest in easily understandable terms. The xTag test is presented in context of akey health issue: the under-diagnosis of the flu in vulnerable populations, such as children, versus the inappropriate and unneeded prescription antibiotics in cases where they are ineffective in treatingtheflu. This story takes a balanced approach in presenting the evidence supporting the pros and cons of the test. It could have been improved by stating that it is not necessary for most routine febrile illnesses in the outpatient setting. Overall, the article is well done and informative.