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: Cost is not mentioned. The story is fairly specific about the fates of two groups of individualsmostly childrenwith epileptic seizures resistant toavailable medications. But since it uses only relative risk reduction figures to quantify the benefit, it doesn't go far enough to satisfy this criterion. The story says, for example, that "seizure frequency declined by an average 45 percent in all participants." Did they go from two seizures to one seizure per day or from 10 to 5? Providing the absolute numbers would have clarified the size of the benefit. The subheadline declares that "drug interactions remain a concern," and story includes reference to a study that found cannabidiol to interact "badly" with anti-seizure medications currently approved for epilepsy treatment. It later specifies the drugs that may be affected. We think this nod in the direction of harms is sufficient for a Satisfactory rating, although we're concerned that the story mentions no other side effects from the treatment. A news release noted that "Adverse events occurred in more than 10 percent of participants with the most common being somnolence, diarrhea and fatigue and led to discontinuation in 4 percent of patients." The story makes an early point that neither of the studies that received most of the attention was blinded; that is, both patients and scientists were aware of the procedures. The story also prominently reflects the views of an independent researcher who reminds readers that (1) placebo rates can be quite high and (2) the field won't know the "real" effects until well-designed clinical studies are conducted. Children whose epileptic seizures are not controlled by current drugs have few options. This is a real problem. There was no disease (or pot) mongering. Although the story does make clear the distinction between researchers involved in the studies discussed and those not involved, there is no mention of funding. Who funded the study is a very important question. It would also be important to know if any of the researchers involved/quoted were consultants/paid by this company. A news release issued in advance of the American Epilepsy Society meeting, where these studies were scheduled to be presented, notes that the medicine used (called Epidiolex) and was supplied by manufacturer GW Pharmaceutical. That information didn't make it into the story. The interest in marijuana constituents as possible treatments arose because existing alternativesanti-seizure drugsdo not work with some patients. So a premise of this story is that existing alternatives are unsuccessful in this group of paitents. One of the study investigators makesit clear that federal approval for the drug could take up to five years. However, the story also notes that some activist families have already begun using cannabidiol oils "that are made artisanally." Since cannabis has been used for the treatment of seizures for centuries, it's curious why the researchers didn't test the compound in a better designed trial (randomized, blinded and placebo controlled). The public and patients are still left with the question of whether this works. But the story does briefly mention previous studies that have looked at cannibidiol in adults, so the story gets a pass here. The story reflects some enterprise reporting independent of the news release from the American Epilepsy Society; for example, the reporter solicited information about the study's validity from an independent researcher. Claim: Marijuana Chemical Shows Promise for Hard-to-Treat Epilepsy in Kids
Solution:
Efficacy and safety studies of a marijuana-derived oil on children for whom existing drugs fail to control epileptic seizures support moving cannabidiol into clinical studies. That's good news. Less cheery is encountering stories about the effects of this drug before it has been tested in placebo-controlled, blinded research venues or even before the research has undergone peer review. The story in this case makes the shortcomings of the evidence a prominent point in the coverage and we applaud this careful approach. But whether desperate parents will heed that signal is another matter. A source notes in the story that a "major" clinical trial's results will become available early in 2016. Might the more responsible path have been for journalism to bide its time as well? When a child suffers, little else matters. Parents of epileptic kids whose seizures are not responsive to anti-seizure medicines will be on the lookout for alternatives. Some have apparently already begun to treat their children with marijuana-derived oils similar to that being examined in these studies. Learning as much as possibleas soon as possibleabout these chemicals is, consequently, important.