Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. 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
Answer: 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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: No costs of treatmentany treatmentare described. The study measured how many men with low-risk prostate cancer (who would be appropriate candidates for watchful waiting) had either surgery or radiation. While the aim of the study was to quantify and report an estimated figure for "overtreatment," the story doesn't really describe that. Viewers could think that all men reported in the story as having low-risk prostate cancer and who were treated with surgery or radiation were overtreated (half of 25,000 men), when the actual study reports 10% of men were overtreated. Major harms of surgery or radiation are providedincontinence and sexual problems. On the flip side, the article also points out that some cancers can be life-threatening (a risk of watchful waiting, although not explicitly stated here is that a man could miss a chance to "cure" his cancer). The story explains that researchers collected records of men who had prostate cancer, so an astute viewer could potentially figure out that this was a cohort study (retrospective). It could be clearer. The story describes the natural history of prostate cancer, and specifically, the fact that it is usually slow-growing and that many men may never need treatment, which is true. However, the anecdotal story, which presumably is a shining example of a watchful waiting perspective, is troublesome. This man reports being bothered by the thought of side effects and yet reports having hormone therapy, which itself has many side effects (including loss of sex drive) and it isn't clear from the story whether this was even indicated for his cancer (so, he could be substituting one harmful treatment for another). The story quotes an expert not related to the research to confirm that prostate cancer is often unnecessary to treat. The story describes four treatment optionssurgery, radiation, hormone therapy, and watchful waiting. However, in the example given, a man who chose not to have surgery or radiation opted for hormone therapy, which can also have significant side effects that weren't discussed. This isn't a good example of a "watchful waiting" strategy. The story mentions 4 treatment options: surgery, radiation, hormonal therapy and watchful waiting. It states that many men choose either surgery or radiation, implying these treatments are widely available and it also relates an anecdotal story of one man choosing some form of watchful waiting, implying this approach is also available (although the man's story, and specifically, the addition of hormone treatment to watchful waiting isn't the traditional view of this approach). The option of watchful waiting, while historically less commonly pursued than other more active treatments, is not new, which the article implies. There's no evidence the story relied solely on a news release. Claim: Prostate cancer being overtreated, study shows
Answer:
The story describes a study which quantifies the number of men who might be overtreated with surgery or radiation for prostate cancer. The story does a nice job of describing the natural history of prostate cancer, that is, that many prostate cancers are slow-growing and that many men don't need treatment, which can have troublesome side effects. The article could have been more clear about the study design and exactly how many men were estimated to have been "overtreated." Viewers are provided information about how many men were candidates for watchful waiting and could easily assume that any man who did not choose this approach was overtreated. Yet the actual study reports 10% of men were "overtreated." The story also strangely reports an anecdotal story of one man who presumably chose watchful waiting. Yet this man also took a course of hormone therapy, which has multiple bothersome side effects related to depletion of nearly all a man's testosterone (side effects like loss of sex drive). It's confusing why this example was chosen, when this isn't normally considered an option for men with low-risk prostate cancer.