Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following 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
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.
Reason: 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.

Now, solve this instance: Paragraph: "The cost of currently available low-dose, pulsed immune suppressing drugs could have been mentioned. It would be good to know if there would be a potential cost-saving for the patient with HiCy therapy. The story does note the economics driving drug research and implications for the development of new treatments for people with difficult-to-treat chronic conditions. The suggestion that results of this study could lead to a cure for MS seems premature, especially given the small number of people involved and outcomes at 2 years; however, the story does note the limited information available for HiCy and the need for future randomized controlled trials with a larger group of patients. The story mentions the harms of treatment typically seen in patients taking the pulsed dose of cyclophosphamide, as well as side effects seen in the small group of patients in the HiCy trial. These included: nausea and hair loss and increased risk of infection. The story also mentioned that some patients' symptoms became worse before they improved. Researchers do not currently know the long-term effects of this high-dose, concentrated drug regimen. The story adequately describes the small, open-label, pilot-stage study of 9 MS patients and presents findings for the lay reader. The story appropriately notes inclusion criteria for the study (i.e. early stages of aggressive MS) and cautions that the preliminary findings may not apply to other people with different subtypes of MS. The story provides some data on study endpoints, i.e. brain lesions in 7 of 9 people improved and there was a statistically significant reduction in disability in most participants. The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story includes U.S. prevalence data and describes different forms of MS, qualifying discussion of the novel treatment with a reminder that HiCy was only tested in very debilitated patients. As mentioned in the press release accompanying this story, the study included the ""worst of the worst"" MS patients. The story includes interview with study authors and participants, as well as Dr. Richert, VP of research and clinical programs for MS Society, who puts the results of this study in perspective. The story mentions other FDA-approved treatments for MS and compares the current use of longer-term pulsed intervals of cyclophosphamide with the higher-concentrated regimenwhich lasted only 4 days and was less toxic. The story notes that this experimental delivery system was tested in people in the early stages of a particularly aggressive form of MS, and the treatment is not a long-term cure. The story mentions that high-dose cyclophosphamide (generic name for Cytoxan, Neosar, Revimmune) (HiCy) is currently being studied via clinical trials, and at this time the concentrated form of the immunosuppressant drug is limited to people in the early stages of an aggressive form of MS. The story mentions that cyclophosphamide is already used ina different dosing regimen for treatment of MS. The high-dose regimen is under study and more information about risk and efficacy is needed before it can be accepted for clinical use. The story describes the pros and cons of this new method of administering an existing drug to a subset of patients in the early stages of a particularly debilitating form of MS. The story discusses why this method of delivery may be an improvement over existing immunosuppressant drugs regimens for difficult-to-treat cases. There is similar language in the press release and news story; however, there is also some independent reporting and the story includes a perspective (MS researcher Dr. Richert) other than those of the researchers and participants from the HiCy trials." Claim: "I've gotten my life back": Hopkins reports success with MS treatment
Student:
The story describes a new method of administering an existing drug to a subset of patients in the early stages of a debilitating form of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). The story discusses why this method of delivery may be an improvement over existing immunosuppressant drug regimens for difficult-to-treat MS cases. And it explains why more information about risk and efficacy of the high-dose treatment is needed before it can be accepted for clinical use. The story adequately describes the small, open-label, pilot-stage study of 9 MS patients. The story appropriately notes inclusion criteria for the study (i.e. patients in the early stages of aggressive MS) and cautions that the preliminary findings may not apply to other people with different subtypes of MS. The suggestion by a study researcher that results of this study could lead to a cure for MS seems premature, especially given the small number of people involved and outcomes at 2 years; however, the story does note the limited information available for HiCy therapy and the need for future randomized controlled trials with a larger group of patients. The story mentions the harms of treatment typically seen in patients taking the pulsed dose of cyclophosphamide, as well as side effects seen in the small group of patients in the HiCy trial. The cost of currently available low-dose, pulsed immune suppressing drugs could have been mentioned. It would be good to know if there would be a potential cost-saving for the patient with HiCy therapy. But the story does note the economics driving drug research and implications for the development of new treatments for people with difficult-to-treat chronic conditions. Overall, though, this was a solid report.