Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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.
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
Output: 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.
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.

New input case for you: Paragraph: The analysis suggests the potentially harmful effect of Celebrex dosage is most pronounced in higher-risk patients, researchers said at the American College of Cardiology scientific meeting. "Patients at low cardiovascular risk should take some level of comfort," said Dr. Scott Solomon, lead researcher of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored analysis. "That wasn't so clear previously." Doctors should exercise caution in prescribing the drug, generally known as celecoxib, in high-risk patients, said Solomon, whose analysis was also published online in the journal Circulation. Celebrex belongs to a class of pain drugs known as cox-2 inhibitors and is the only such drug still on the market in the United States. Merck and Co Inc withdrew its widely used cox-2 drug, Vioxx, from the market in 2004 after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke in long- term users. Another cox-2 inhibitor from Pfizer called Bextra was also pulled from the U.S. market due to safety concerns. While the analysis sheds light on how the drug should be used, Solomon said he could not judge whether the data lift the cloud over this class of drugs. The six trials involving a total of 7,950 patients all studied Celebrex against a placebo for uses other than arthritis. Patients received either 400 milligrams once a day, 200 mg twice a day, or 400 mg twice a day. The primary goal of the pooled analysis was an assessment of the combined risk of cardiovascular death, heart attack, stroke, heart failure or events involving blood clots. Researchers found the heart risk was lowest at the 400 mg daily dose. They found nearly a two-fold risk of adverse heart events with the 200 mg twice daily dose and that jumped to about a three-fold risk at the 400 mg twice daily dose. "Even 400 mg once a day showed elevated risk" in the high-risk population, Solomon said, adding he could not extrapolate whether doses lower than 400 mg cut risk further. The increased risk was not affected by aspirin use, researchers said. "Most of the data used in this pooled analysis have previously been published and are consistent with what we already know about the cardiovascular risks of Celebrex and other prescription arthritis pain relievers," said Gail Cawkwell, Pfizer's executive medical director. "The analysis doesn't provide any new conclusions on the FDA-approved doses of Celebrex, including the most commonly prescribed dose of 200 mg daily," she said. Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic, who has a study on lower doses underway, added: "There aren't long-term randomized placebo-controlled trials for that dose, The only way we're ever going to answer these questions is with good randomized prospective data," he said. "We'll tell it like it is when the data is in." Claim: Celebrex risky in high-risk patients, study finds.
Output:
Doctors should prescribe the lowest doses of Celebrex possible in patients at high risk of heart problems, researchers who did a combined analysis of six studies of the Pfizer Inc pain drug said on Monday.