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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Limiting the quantity per dosage unit will reduce the risk of inadvertent overdose, which can lead to liver failure, liver transplant and death, the Food and Drug Administration said. It cited the fact that no available data showed that taking more than the recommended dose provided benefits that outweighed the added risks. (link.reuters.com/nen95v) Inadvertent overdose from combination drugs containing acetaminophen, also known as paracetamol in most countries outside the United States, accounts for nearly half of all cases of acetaminophen-related liver failure in the United States, the agency said. Combination acetaminophen products are commonly prescribed to patients to treat pain from acute injuries, post-operative pain, or pain following dental procedures. In January 2011, the FDA asked manufacturers of combination drugs containing acetaminophen, sold globally under trade names such as Tylenol and Panadol, to limit acetaminophen doses to no more than 325 mg in each tablet or capsule by January 14, 2014. (link.reuters.com/hyn95v) Some of these products still remain available, the agency said. The FDA also suggested that pharmacists who receive a prescription for a combination product with more than the recommended dose contact the prescriber to discuss using a lower dose. In the near future, the FDA plans to institute proceedings to withdraw approval for combination drugs that remain on the market, it said in a statement. Acetaminophen, one of the most commonly used drugs in the United States, is widely used in both prescription and over-the-counter products to reduce pain and fever. Claim: FDA asks doctors to limit acetaminophen in combination drugs.
[EX A]: U.S. health regulators recommended on Tuesday that healthcare professionals stop prescribing combination drugs that contain more than 325 milligrams of acetaminophen per tablet, capsule, or other dosage unit, citing the risk of liver damage.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Costs of theMRIdian on-table adaptive radiotherapy in comparison to conventional radiotherapy are not discussed. Given that it is new and more personalized than current treatment options it's likely to be correspondingly more expensive. Certainly, more frequent MRIs would be very costly. The release provides exact information about increased survival rates in the cohorts of individuals treated with the adaptive versus the convention radiotherapy techniques. "The cohort receiving a higher dose demonstrated a near doubling of median overall survival (Kaplan-Meier estimated median overall survival of 27.8 months compared to 14.8 months)." The news release provides specific results regarding experiences of both groups with regard to toxicity from radiotherapy. We appreciate that the headline of this release starts with the words "early data" because this report deals with preliminary and retrospective research. It was not a clinical trial. Instead, results are based on retrospectively comparing treatment of two groups of patients at four institutions. Respective comparisons can't account for a host of factors that might influence results. At the end of the news release readers are told that on the basis of these promising results a clinical trial is being planned. With five-year survival rates of 1 to 14%, it would be hard to engage in disease mongering about pancreatic cancer. This research was sponsored by ViewRay, the company that developed the MRIdian system, and the release does a good job calling attention to this. However, according to the published study, at least one of the co-authors received honoraria from ViewRay Medical Systems. Since this was not included in the release we're rating this criteria Not Satisfactory. This study was all about comparing alternatives, so it scores Satisfactory on that criterion. It would have helped readers if alternatives would have been described more in laymen's terms. The news release notes that the next step is a prospective clinical trial and that tells savvy readers that this treatment strategy has a long road of testing ahead. Still, we think the release could have done a better job clarifying that this therapy is not yet ready for patients, outside of the clinical trial. A study that suggests a doubling of median survival is sure to capture the attention of patients newly diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. These patients and their families are closely aware of the glum statistics for the disease. This is a practical concern that the release should have touched on. This technology is indeed novel and unique to ViewRay, though it is becoming available in more and more cancer treatment centers. No unjustifiable language was identified in the news release. Claim: Early data shows nearly 2x prolonged median survival for inoperable pancreatic cancer
[EX A]: This news release reports results of a retrospective study comparing conventional radiotherapy for inoperable pancreatic cancer versus an adaptive radiation therapy that allows clinicians to see the tumor in real time and respond to changes on a daily basis. Targeting the tumor more specifically means higher doses of radiation can be used without increasing damage to surrounding tissues. The study, funded by ViewRay, maker of the MRIdian system, is admittedly preliminary. It is to be followed up by a clinical trial. The release would have been more helpful to readers had it mentioned costs and disclosed a conflict of interest between one of the study authors and the device manufacturer. Surgery is an option only for certain less common types of pancreatic cancer. The five-year survival rates for pancreatic cancers that cannot be treated with surgery are 12% to 14% even for those diagnosed in stage I; the five-year survival rate for cancers detected at stage IV is about 1%, according to the American Cancer Society. ACS reminds readers that five-year survival rates are estimates and that "many people live longer often much longer than 5 years." In that context, a treatment that could extend the lives of the 1.5% of Americans who develop pancreatic cancer is big news.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: We give the story credit for at least citing a $30,000 cost for the "surgeries" but wish it had explained what that included and what it might not. Surgery to change the battery every two years certainly adds to cost. Undoubtedly patients require more intensive expensive followup and perhaps specialized checks to ensure the device is working. With broad strokes across discussion of three different uses for three different conditions, the story did an adequate job quantifiying benefits. As stated in the "Evidence" criterion above, this is where a control group and reporting response rates for treated versus control groups would be very informative. Instead, we only get a qualitative description of benefits which is useful but which might leave careful readers asking for more. This is one area where the story could have been improved. There was no detailed discussion of what can go wrong with deep brain stimulation. There was a brief mention of "if" the electrodes cause neurological side effects. But how often does that happen? And the story noted that the surgery does "sometimes" cause dangerous brain bleeding or infections. How often is "sometimes"? At a very high, overview level, the story explained the current state of the evidence. But more information would have been better. Current evidence for depression/OCD is based on case series. These studies don't have a control group, making the results more subject to bias. No disease mongering of any of the conditions discussed. The story was repeatedly clear about deep brain stimulation being used when standard medications or behavior therapy had not worked. But it would be helpful to give estimates of the proportion of patients with depression or OCD who aren't helped by available treatments. Several sources were cited. Dr. Mayberg's connection to St. Jude Medical was mentioned. The story could have mentioned that Dr. Okun's center and Dr. Greenberg have received funding from Medtronic. Greenberg's current funding from the National Institute of Mental Health was noted. We think the sourcing and disclosure was adequate. A strong point of the story was that it repeatedly provided the context for the use of deep brain stimulation "when standard medications failworst-case patientsdoesn't mean patients can abandon traditional therapypeople with intractable (problems)(people who) failed behavior therapy." This story already attempted to accomplish a lot, but to be complete, it could have offered explicit description of currently approved options: antidepressant medications (multiple classes); psychotherapy (multiple options); combinations of medications or medications and therapy; transcranial magnetic stimulation (limited availabilty), vagal nerve stimulation, ECT and estimate of the proportion of patients who fail these treatments. Nonethless, we feel it met the criteria for a satisfactory score. The story states that 70,000 have had deep brian stimulation for Parkinson's or other movement disorders, and that studies are underway on at least 60 people with intractable obsessive-compulsive disorder and 100 with severe depression. The experimental nature of these approaches is clear from the story. A nice touch would be to give a link to clinicaltrials.gov to allow readers the option of looking up more information on the studies in progress and finding out if recruitment is open and how to access the study. The story did a good job putting the new uses of deep brain stimulation into the context of other research and other therapeutic approaches. It's clear that the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Trying brain pacemakers to zap psychiatric disease
[EX A]:
We especially appreciate the lack of hype in this story. The reporter clearly worked hard to stick to the evidence not merely to promote the potential. About 65-70 percent of patients with major depressive disorder improve substantially with 1 to 2 course of standard treatment (medication, psychotherapy or combinations). Subsequent treatment options have progressively lower rates of treatment response. Therefore, a significant number of people need other treatment options. Deep brain stimulation is an invasive treatment, but one that has shown promise in a small number of patients.