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 is below.
Q: 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
A: 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.
Rationale: 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.
Q: Paragraph: While the story included a calculation that suggested that the intervention was as cost effective as strategies screening for elevated LDL, the story failed to indicate the actual cost to the consumer. Although the story mentioned the number of people in the two study groups who had heart-related death, heart attacks and other serious cardiac problems during the course of the study, it could have a done a better job at clarifying that this represented a small percentage of affected individuals. A more direct statement an juxtaposition of absolute versus relative risk reduction would have been helpful. The story indicated that there was an increased number of people taking Crestor who developed diabetes during the study. The story mentioned that the results of the study were presented at a recent meeting and that the results of the study had been published. It described that the study population was a group of 17,802 individuals, all of whom had elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and that it was a randomized study of individuals given 20 mg of rosuvastin (Crestor) compared with a placebo group. The story did temper the enthusiasm for more testing and more treatment by including skeptical comments from editorial writer Hlatky. The story included comments from several individuals who were not involved in the study and provided some cautionary perspective about the implications of the study. And while this piece relied heavily on comments from Dr. Ridker, the story did mention that he was an inventor of the test for CRP was also the recipient of funding from the manufacturer of the study drug. The two main issues in the study reported on was the use of CRP to identify candidates who could benefit from lipid lowering and then the use of Crestor to lower lipids in these individuals to lower cardiovascular disease risk. In terms of treatment options,the story indicated the uncertainty about whether the outcomes observed were the result of the specific drug study or could be obtained with the use of any in the statin class of drugs. It also mentioned that the reduction in CRP was not associated with the decrease in LDL levels seen in the study participants. There was no discussion, however, about what, if any, other means for lowering CRP were available. The story did mention that there was little known about what the long term impact of maintaining very low levels of LDL cholesterol. From the story, it was clear that Crestor, the medication reported on, was currently available. In addition, the story indicated that it did not have FDA approval for use in the way it was employed in the study. The story reported that the study indicated a new target population for a medication that was currently approved for use. However, the story failed to note that other studies (e.g. AFCAPS) have found benefit from lipid lowering in patients with no history of heart disease and non-elevated LDL levels, using the statin lovastatin, a drug with is now available as generic. The reductions reported were somewhat smaller, but not radically different. Does not rely exclusively on a press release. Claim: Cholesterol Drug Cuts Heart Risk in Healthy Patients
A:
This story described the results of the JUPITER study which found that use of the statin medication Crestor reduced the risk of heart-related death, heart attacks and other serious cardiac problems in people who would be calculated to be at low risk of these but who had elevated levels of C-reactive protein. The story met most of our criteria, but could have emphasized that the findings are those of a single study and that results need to be replicated before they can be assumed to have widespread application. It also could have mentioned that there have been other studies with less expensive drugs with similar results. It is good that the story included skeptical comments from editorial writer Hlatky, something that a surprising number of stories ignored or failed to include. We are troubled by the high placement of the impressive-sounding 44% relative risk reduction figure, with the absolute risk reduction given later in the piece, but not juxtaposed to the more impressive-sounding statistic. We think readers need more clear help processing such stats. There was also only a brief mention of the troubling diabetes rate in the Crestor group.