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.
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
Example 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.
Example 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.

Problem: Paragraph: Using the lead researcher as a source, the article states that most insurers cover oxybutynin; that a month's supply can range from $21 to $42; and that the cost could be less, depending on the type of insurance a patient has. Kudos to HealthDay for explicitly addressing cost. The article reports that the study found the women on oxybutynin had an average of five fewer hot flashes per week, while those on the placebo had three fewer. It's not clear if the benefit was the same for both doses. The story explains that this was from a group 150 women who experienced at least 28 hot flashes a week. This is enough information to glean the magnitude of benefit. But, the story could have used more context: The drug resulted in five fewer hot flashes a week. That's not even one less hot flash per day. And those on the placebo, which costs nothing and has no side effects, has three fewer hot flashes a week. That's a difference of two hot flashes a weekwhich seems like a really low bar. The article says that side effects included constipation, mild diarrhea, dry mouth, dry eyes, episodes of confusion and difficulty urinating. It's not noted if these side effects were seen in both the low-dose and high-dose groups. There is also no indication of which side effects were most common or how many women experienced them. Importantly, though, the article does note that the long-term effects of the drug aren't known and that oxybutynin is in a class of drugs that "have been linked with mental decline" and that previous studies have found "the drugs may raise the risk for problems with short-term memory, reasoning and confusion, and may also hike the risk for dementia among older patients." Information on ClincalTrials.gov about the trial suggests this study evaluated two doses in an effort to find an effective dose with fewer side effects. The concluding paragraph of the article states that the study was scheduled to be presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium and that "studies presented at meetings are usually considered preliminary until peer-reviewed for publication in a medical journal." It's important to note this. But the wording also indicates that the article was written before the presentation was even given and the the reporter never saw the researcher's data or slides or heard any questions the audience may have asked regarding the findings. It's indisputable that many women going through menopause experience hot flashes and that side effects of many breast cancer treatments include hot flashes, in some cases because the treatment puts a woman into immediate menopause. They result from fluctuations in women's hormones. The article quotes Dr. Alice Police, regional director of breast surgery at the Northwell Health Cancer Institute in Sleepy Hollow, NY, who was not affiliated with the study. We did not detect any conflicts of interest that should have been disclosed. The article makes it sound like the only option for treating hot flashes is menopausal hormone therapy. But, in fact, there are other ways to treat hot flashes that are currently recommended. These include drugs used for other purposes as well as non-drug options like mind-body approaches. The article states that the drug, which is approved to treat incontinence, is readily available. This is the first time that a drug is this class has been shown to have an effect on hot flashes, and so is newsworthy for this reason. That could have been more explicit in the story, though. The article included original comments not found in the news release. Claim: Incontinence Drug May Cut Hot Flashes in Breast Cancer Survivors
Solution: The San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium typically generates extensive media coverage of new research studies. However, not all of the studies presented are of the same caliber and some will never undergo the peer review that will lead them to be published in a medical journal. This means reporters needs to be at the top of their game when evaluating the news releases they receive about studies that will be presented at the meeting. This story from HealthDay does many things right it covers costs, side effects, study limitations, and more. This earned it five stars from us. However, we do think the story would have been even stronger if it had better emphasized a key fact: The overall reduction in hot flashes was roughly 28 to 23 in the drug group and 28 to 25 in the placebo group. That's not much, and raises eyebrows in light of a physician in the story calling it "game-changing." Many breast cancer treatments are known to cause hot flashes. Some premenopausal women have treatments that put them into immediate menopause; others enter menopause naturally while they are being treated for breast cancer; and still others are postmenopausal and find the drugs used to treat their breast cancer cause their hot flashes to return or become more frequent. Hot flashes and night sweats can affect quality of life, and it would be great if there was an easy way to control them without using menopausal hormone therapy whichhas never been recommended for women with breast cancer as it is known to increase breast cancer risk. However, as multiple studies have shown, many drugs over the years rarely perform much better than a placeboas was the case in this study of oxybutynin. Yet, this study got widespread play as game-changing.