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.

[Q]: Paragraph: "The story does not discuss the costs of annual mammography screening, or even provide a range of costs. The story does not discuss any health care policy cost repercussions of breast cancer screening recommendations. The story does not discuss the cost of unnecessary biopsies or other treatments for women who have a false positive diagnosis via mammography (greater in women 40-49). The story highlights the 26 percent difference in breast cancer death rates, but fails to include any information about the overall risk. The researchers reported that based on their results you would have to screen 1252 women for a decade in order to prevent one breast cancer death. In other words, for the remaining 1251 women, a decade of mammograms did not alter their breast cancer mortality. Although this story does not go into detail about the potential harms of screening mammography, it does include comments from independent experts who point out that the scans do lead to the diagnosis and treatment of women whose tumors would never have become life-threatening. This story briefly explains key features of this study. It also includes critiques from independent experts who note limitations of the study design and analysis although the statement that the researchers ""did not compare the broader breast cancer death rates""in the counties"" is unclear. Overall, there is much more the Times could have done to analyze methodological questions surrounding the Swedish study. (For example, read our blog on this matter.) Interviews with Peter Gotzsche and with Donald Berry saved the story. But so much more could have been done another reason why more than 471 words should have been devoted to the reporting. The story does not discuss the prevalence of breast cancer among women in their 40s. That omission would not usually be considered disease mongering, but since surveys indicate most people overestimate the risk of breast cancer among women in their 40s, failing to mention the actual rates leaves those misconceptions intact. The story does include comments from experts who raise concerns about overdiagnosis; that is, the number of breast tumors discovered that are not actually life-threatening. A strong point of this story is the inclusion of comments from several independent experts with a variety of perspectives on the meaning of the latest study results. The story does not mention any potential conflicts of interest, but the researchers did not list any in their journal article. Although not discussed in detail, the story does mention that the United States Preventive Services Task Force has questioned the value of screening mammograms for women younger than 50, thus implying that not being screened is an option to consider. The availability of mammography was not explicitly addressed, but we can't criticize the story for that. Instead, we give a Not Applicable score for this criterion. This story could have done a better job explaining how this study and its methods are different from earlier research on the topic.But two things lead us to give it a barely satisfactory score. First, there was a brief attempt to mention the unique ""circumstances"" of the Swedish study. Second, the story also pointed out that there's a historical ideological pattern in the study authors' work noting that they ""have long been advocates of mammography screening."" It's clear that the story was not based on a news release." Claim: Mammogram Benefit Seen for Women in Their 40s
[A]: This story includes strong comments from independent experts that can help readers get a broader understanding of the results of a study that compared breast cancer death rates among women in their 40s who lived in areas of Sweden that did or did not offer routine mammography. However, because the story reports only the percentage difference in death rates, without including absolute numbers or the number of women who need to be screened to prevent one death, readers may get the impression that the effect of mammography was larger than what the researchers actually reported. People commonly overestimate the risk of breast cancer death among women in their 40s. By not including any information about the absolute numbers of deaths among women in this study or in the population at large, the story misses an opportunity to correct common misconceptions.

[Q]: Paragraph: We'll rule this not applicable because, in general, most people have ballpark knowledge of how much chocolate costs. The story did not mention that dark chocolate is typically more expensive than milk chocolate especially for the premium brands with very high concentrations of cocoa solids. A brief explanation would have been helpful. The story went the extra mile here, providing theabsolute rates of stroke seen in the groups consuming the lowest and highest quantities of chocolate. "Among those with the highest weekly chocolate intake more than 45 grams there were 2.5 strokes per 1,000 women per year. That figure was 7.8 per 1,000 among women who ate the least (less than 8.9 grams per week)." These statistics weren't provided in the study text, suggesting that the writer made the calculations based on data contained in one of the study tables. We applaud theextra effort made to provide meaningful statistics to readers! Close call here, but the story goes a step further than WebMD when discussing the possibleadverse effects of consuming too much chocolate. In addition to warning that chocolate has a lot of fat, sugar and calories, it explicitly notes that eating too much of it"could be counterproductive." WebMD offers no comparable warning and suggests that eating more chocolate thanwasconsumed in this study wouldresult in similarhealth benefits. This story was much more cautious in its depiction of the findings than the competing WebMD coverage. Most important, it was careful to explain high up that the study found only a correlation between chocolate intake and lower stroke risk. As one of the study authors explains: "Given the observational design of the study, findings from this study cannot prove that it's chocolate that lowers the risk of stroke." We also appreciate the story's more nuanced language regarding which constituents of chocolate might be responsible for possible benefits. Whereas WebMD states unequivocally that flavonoids and antioxidants "deserve the credit" for these benefits, Reuterssays more judiciously thatflavonoids "may be responsible for chocolate's apparent effects on health." [Emphasis ours.] "Whether that theoretical benefit translates into real-life benefits remains to be proven by rigorous studies, however," Reuters appropriately adds. There was no disease-mongering. This was the only major shortcoming no independent perspective. An expert in epidemiology might havepointed out,for example,that the data on chocolate consumption were collected fromsubject self-reports, and therefore should be viewed cautiously. The availability of chocolate is not in question. The story appropriately notes that there is a stronger statistical association with dark chocolate as opposed to milk chocolate. The story notes that previous research has linked higher levels of chocolate consumption with improved heart health. The story includes comments attributed to a direct email from one of the study authors, sowe can confirm our overall impression that this story wasn't basedon apress release. Claim: Chocolate lovers have fewer strokes, study finds
[A]: Starting withthe headline, this story is careful toexplainthat the study observed fewer strokes in those who ate more chocolate; it doesn't suggest thatthe chocolate prevented strokes. It also features excellent useofstatistics, a more explicit description of potential harms, and mentions alternative approaches to prevention. The only major shortcoming was a lack ofan independent perspective on the findings. Some journalists may balk at our insistence that stories about observational studies include appropriate discussion of the limitations of the evidence. In only 378 words, this story provides another example that this can be done and it doesn't require the length of a full medical journal article to do so.

[Q]: Paragraph: There is no mention of the cost for the tested drug, cimaglermin, in this story. The costs for regularly prescribed drugs for the medical condition that's the focus of the study weakened left ventricular function are well known and although cimaglermin is an experimental drug, it should be possible to predict whether the new drug would be comparatively priced, cheaper or more expensive. Readers would benefit from that knowledge. While this story discusses that the drug seemed to benefit patients and was effective, it doesn't say how that was measured, and by how much the measurement improved due to the drug. (By digging into the research paper, via figure 3, we found that the benefits were measured by tracking absolute increases inejection fraction, which is the amount of blood pumped out the ventricles. It increased 8% in the group receiving a medium or high dose of the medicine.) One issue that might be confusing for readers: The story notes that a "phase 1 trial like this one is designed to see if a new drug is safe, not to test its effectiveness." If that's the case, then why is the framing of the story about how effective it was? The story clearly points out that side effects included nausea and headaches, and that one participant did experience abnormal liver function after receiving the highest dose, a side effect that eventually cleared up. This is a strong point of the story: It clearly establishes that this was a small phase one randomized controlled trial, and the story explains what that means for the drug's development. A phase 1 trial like this one is designed to see if a new drug is safe, not to test its effectiveness. Before cimaglermin could be used to treat patients, it must prove its worth in a series of progressively larger and challenging trials and then be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The process can take several years. Based on these preliminary findings, larger trials are being planned, Lenihan said. But, as noted in quantify benefits criterion above, readers might be confused by why so much of the story focused on the drug's effectiveness, if this preliminary study wasn't designed to test that. The story doesn't commit disease mongering. The story does get credit for quoting a researcher not affiliated with this project, but it neglects to mention some obvious potential conflicts of interest among the members of the research team. According to the research paper, eight of the 13 researchers have some linkage to pharmaceutical firms and seven of them have a connection to the sponsor of the study, Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., either as consultants, employees, or stockholders, and two of them have had research funded by the company. The story does mention alternatives for dealing with weakened left ventricular function, primarily through this paragraph: "People with heart failure often take a combination of drugs, Lenihan said. These include medications to lower blood pressure and diuretics to help remove excess fluid that builds up as a result of the heart's labored pumping ability. In addition, some people have implanted defibrillators or pacemakers." We'll rate this category satisfactory, given that the story admits that it is reporting on a phase one trial, and includes the following information: "Before cimaglermin could be used to treat patients, it must prove its worth in a series of progressively larger and challenging trials and then be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The process can take several years." The drug is clearly described in terms of its experimental nature at this point. This story doesn't appear to have relied on a news release. Claim: Heart Failure Drug Shows Promise in First Human Trial
[A]:
This HealthDay story reports on the very early results of a phase one trial of a drug, cimaglermin, intended to improve the left ventricular function among patients with a type of heart failure known as "severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction." The story does clearly say that it is a phase one trial and explains that clinical use of the drug may be years away, if then. The story would have been stronger if it had detailed exactly what the researchers were measuring when they concluded the drug worked better than placebo. Obviously, if a new drug is found that works effectively to thwart this kind of heart disease, then that's good news all around, especially if the drug is needed less frequently and is well tolerated, as the story suggests. But care needs to be taken in potentially over-touting the results of these very early trials, and therefore raising the hopes of patients who may be disappointed at a later stage in the research process. Only larger studies with longer follow-up will determine whether these very preliminary results are supported or not. A key outcome to follow will be preventing admissions to the hospital for heart failure, and ultimately, prolonging life.