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 Input:
Paragraph: The story focused on costs, including information about the relative cost comparison between what are called "open" surgeries and those done laparoscopically (with a thin flexible tube.) The release summarized how minimally invasive techniques reduced the length of hospital stay and complication rates for patients. "Researchers also found that, on average, the minimally invasive approach reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days, and open operations were more than $9,000 more expensive than minimally invasive procedures. The researchers also found that laparoscopic procedures were better for patients in terms of fewer complications. Laparoscopic anti-reflux operations were less likely to result in postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death." We rate this, but just barely, for citing cost differences between the two types of surgery and the average reduction in the number of days a patient must remain hospitalized. We do wish the release had delved more into the specifics of reduced complications. How common were the surgical complications in each surgical method? The release names complications associated with both types of surgery for GERD, while stating that patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures encountered fewer of them: "postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death." The news release gave details about how the study examined records of about 75,000 patients from 1,000 hospitals to compare outcomes in the records for open vs. the minimally invasive laparoscopic surgeries. That's all to the good. However, the news release didn't mention any of the study's limitations. The key one is that this is a retrospective, observational review of records that isn't capable of supporting cause and effect statements such as the minimally invasive approach "reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days." Nor should this kind of evidence be used as the basis for statements such as laparoscopic procedures "were better for patients" and "should be the standard of care." Patients receiving open vs. laparascopic procedures could differ in unknown ways, which is why the superiority of one approach over the other should ideally be established by a prospective, randomized controlled trial. There were other limitations outlined in the journal article that were not mentioned in the release. Because the NIS database doesn't link to hospital records, researchers weren't able to track and measure outcomes "including complications, readmission, and mortality, occurring after the initial hospital discharge." The researchers were also unable to determine which open surgeries were "re-dos" of previous surgeries. The potential for errors in coding which procedures were used was also cited as a possible limitation. There was no disease mongering. The release also provided useful context on the prevalence of GERD and further specified that smaller group of patients, from the many heartburn suffers, might be candidates for the surgery. Well done. The release does not list any funding source for the research and the published study notes that authors had "nothing to disclose." We'll rate this not applicable since this is an examination of existing data, and there may have been no additional outside funding. The news release does a good job here. It compares different surgical methods and it also names alternatives for treating GERD such as medications and changes in the diet. It also states which group of patients the surgery is aimed at: "Anti-reflux surgery should be considered in patients who do not achieve complete control of their symptoms [regurgitation or cough] with medications; who do not want to take medications for the rest of their lives; or who experience complications of medical therapy." It's clear from the release that both methods of surgery have been widely available nationally and the outcomes of 75,000 surgeries were tracked by the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. The release also notes that "urban academic or teaching hospitals" perform laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery more often than "open" procedures, 54.4 percent versus 45.6 percent. And it recommends that anti-reflux surgery should be performed laparoscopically in specialized centers. The news release was not about a novel procedure and made no claim of novelty. However, this isn't the first study to examine laparoscopic vs. open surgery. For example, the British Journal of Surgery published results of a randomized trial of the two methods and the Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology published research on long-term outcomes following laparoscopic and open procedures for GERD. We did not observe any unjustifiable language. Claim: Laparoscopic anti-reflux operation for GERD linked to fewer postoperative complications

Ex Output:
A new study by the American College of Surgeons, a professional organization, compared records for 75,000 patients who underwent surgery for GERD, or gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease. The study looked at two different surgical procedures and found the less invasive one seemed equally effective, but kept patients in the hospital a shorter time with fewer complications. The news release did a good job of discussing surgical alternatives and costs, which were estimated to be $9,000 lower for the less invasive laparoscopic procedure. The release would have been better had it spelled out some of the study limitations, the key one being that a retrospective, observational review of hospital records as this study was isn't capable of supporting the cause and effect statements sprinkled throughout the release. Millions of Americans complain of occasional heartburn, sometimes called a burning sensation in the throat from food coming back up from the stomach. But some estimates are that about 20 percent of US adults fit the definition of GERD, which means they suffer symptoms at least every week. If patients consider a surgical fix, this study shows that a less-invasive procedure could reduce their complications and shorten their hospital stay. It's hard to pin down stats on GERD prevalence. A 2014 review of 16 epidemiological studies of GERD prevalence published in the journal Gut suggest GERD prevalence ranges from "18.1%-27.8% in North America, 8.8%-25.9% in Europe, 2.5%-7.8% in East Asia, 8.7%-33.1% in the Middle East, 11.6% in Australia and 23.0% in South America."

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The Nobel Assembly, which awarded the prize of 8 million Swedish crowns ($1.1 million) at Sweden's Karolinska Institute on Monday, said the discovery solved a problem that had occupied philosophers and scientists for centuries: "How does the brain create a map of the space surrounding us and how can we navigate our way through a complex environment?" Ole Kiehn, a Nobel committee member and professor in Karolinska's neuroscience department, said the three scientists had found "an inner GPS that makes it possible to know where we are and find our way". O'Keefe, now director at the center in neural circuits and behavior at University College London (UCL), discovered the first element of the positioning system in 1971 when he found that a type of nerve cell in a brain region called the hippocampus was always activated when a rat was in a certain place in a room. Seeing that other nerve cells were activated when the rat was in other positions, O'Keefe concluded that these "place cells" formed a map of the room. Uta Frith, a UCL professor of cognitive development said O'Keefe had shown "it is possible to literally map the mind". "He has done much more than discovering neuronal mechanisms in the brain: he has discovered cognitive mechanisms that explain how human beings and other animals navigate," she said. "This beautiful work is heralding a new age of exploration of brain and mind." In 1996, Edvard Moser and May-Britt Moser, who are married and now based in scientific institutes in the Norwegian town of Trondheim, worked with O'Keefe to learn how to record the activity of cells in the hippocampus. Nearly a decade later, the Moser team discovered cells, in the entorhinal cortex region in brains of rats, which function as a navigation system. These so-called "grid cells", they discovered, are constantly working to create a map of the outside world and are responsible for animals' knowing where they are, where they have been, and where they are going. Bill Harris, head of physiology, development and neuroscience at Britain's University of Cambridge, said the scientists' work "has not only revolutionized our understanding of this amazing puzzle (the brain), but has also opened the door into problems of place memory and how we learn and remember routes of navigation, and what sleep and dreams may be doing for memory and performance." While the findings help explain how the brain works, they have no immediate implications for new medicines or other therapies, since they do not set out a mechanism of action. But knowledge about the brain's positioning system can also help understanding of what causes loss of spatial awareness in stroke patients or those with devastating brain diseases like dementia, of which Alzheimer's is the most common form and which affects 44 million people worldwide. O'Keefe told reporters in London he was very surprised to get the Nobel Prize, particularly after what he described as a "checkered youth" jumping from studying classics at school, then aeronautics at college before getting into philosophy and psychology. "I'm still in a state of shock," he said. May-Britt Moser danced and drank champagne with her colleagues in Trondheim after she was told of the award. "This is so great, this is crazy. I am just jumping, screaming," Moser told Reuters. "I am so proud of all the support that we have had. People have believed in us, in what we have been doing and now this is the reward." Norwegian TV showed her co-workers singing "Happy Nobel to you" to the tune of "Happy Birthday". Her husband did not immediately learn that he had won the Nobel Prize as he was on a plane bound to Munich. Someone was waiting for him at Munich airport with flowers and gave him the news, he told the Norwegian news agency NTB. The Mosers join a small club of married couples to win a Nobel Prize that includes Pierre Curie and Marie Curie. John Stein, an emeritus professor of physiology at Oxford said that, as with so many Nobel Prize winners, the scientists' discovery was at first ridiculed and dismissed, only later to get the recognition it warrants "This is great news and well deserved," Stein said. "I remember how great was the scoffing in the early 1970s when John first described 'place cells'. 'Bound to be an artefact' and 'he clearly underestimates rats' sense of smell' were typical reactions. Now, like so many ideas that were at first highly controversial, people say: 'Well that's obvious'!" Medicine is the first of the Nobel Prizes awarded each year. Prizes for achievements in science, literature and peace were first awarded in 1901 in accordance with the will of dynamite inventor and businessman Alfred Nobel. (1 US dollar = 7.2230 Swedish crown) Claim: Nobel Prize for medicine goes to discoverers of brain's 'inner GPS'.

Ex Output:
British-American John O'Keefe and Norwegians May-Britt and Edvard Moser won the 2014 Nobel Prize for medicine for discovering the brain's navigation system and giving clues as to how strokes and Alzheimer's disrupt it.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The Boston Public Health Commission and Mayor Marty Walsh announced the two cases on Wednesday. Officials say both cases have been associated with daycare centers specializing in serving children experiencing homelessness. It is not known if the two cases are connected. The disease is highly infectious and can lead to meningitis, an infection of the brain and spinal cord. According to the commission, the disease is spread through saliva and requires close contact. Any people known to have been in close contact with the children have received antibiotics. The last day either child was at one of the centers was Friday. Claim: 2 cases of meningococcal disease detected in Boston.

Ex Output:
Two young children in Boston have been diagnosed with meningococcal disease.