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: The Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs and the Illinois Department of Public Health are reviewing the case of the resident with the flu-like illness. Officials say the resident of the home 312 miles (500 kilometers) southwest of Chicago has received medical treatment and is recovering. Officials say no other cases of the illness contracted by breathing infected water vapor have been identified. Staff members are monitoring residents for respiratory illnesses. Officials have notified residents, staff members, and relations and representatives of residents. The last case of Legionnaires' at Quincy was in 2018. An outbreak that began in 2015 caused the deaths of 13 residents and sickened dozens more. Then-Gov. Bruce Rauner faced withering criticism for not doing enough in response to the crisis. Claim: Legionnaires' case identified at Quincy veterans' home.
[EX A]: Gov. J.B. Pritzker's administration is investigating a case of Legionnaires' diseases at the veterans' home in Quincy, the site of 13 deaths from the malady starting with a 2015 outbreak.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story says the procedure to insert stents costs from $11,000 to $41,000 in the U.S. The story makes clear there was no significant difference between a sham procedure or stent insertion, but it only describes the benefit as "less pain." We would like to see how the pain was measured, some numbers on how much pain was reduced, and how many patients benefitted in each group. The story briefly mentions there are potential harms, including death. The story describes the study's methods in some detail the sham surgery of the control group, for instance and mentions the size of the study and the characteristics of the subjects. It adds heft to the sense that this was a very good study with multiple reactions from expert sources "humbling," "unbelievable," "impressive" and "very well conducted." Importantly, it quotes one source describing a few desired measures that the study didn't address, such as whether stents would be more effective in patients with more severe disease or who were studied for a longer period of time. The story could have done a better job of explicitly calling attention to the relatively small number of participants and the need for confirmatory follow-up studies. Heart disease is very common in our society and opening up blocked arteries is a common almost routine procedure. No disease mongering occurred in the article. We were pleased to see discussion from many experts, however, the story left out two important potential conflicts of interest. The story states that: Dr. William E. Boden, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, called the results "unbelievable." Readers should have been informed that Boden has received fees from Abbott, a major stent device maker. Also, the story states that: Dr. David Maron, a cardiologist at Stanford University, praised the new study as "very well conducted" but said that it left some questions unanswered. The participants had a profound blockage but only in one artery, he noted, and they were assessed after just six weeks. The story didn't disclose that Dr. Maron is an "employee of and stockholder in Cardiovascular Services of America, which provides outpatient cardiac catheterization and computed tomography angiography services," which was disclosed here. The story (and the study) suggest that medication can manage pain from blocked arteries. Stenting procedures are clearly widely available in the U.S. and across the world. What's less clear, the story says, is whether guidelines or practice for stenting will change in the U.S.: "The idea that stenting relieves chest pain is so ingrained that some experts said they expect most doctors will continue with stenting, reasoning that the new research is just one study." We thought this was an interesting point and are glad it was included. The many expressions of surprise by practicing cardiologists makes clear that the study offers a novel finding. The story did not rely on the news release. Claim: 'Unbelievable': Heart Stents Fail to Ease Chest Pain
[EX A]: This New York Times story describes startling news that a very common procedureinserting a stent to open a blocked blood vesseldoes not add benefit over medication in patients with angina. Angina is chest pain due to blocked heart arteries, and is common among people with heart disease. Sourcing is a strong point for this story: It features perspective from many American cardiologists who were shocked to learn of the negative results from this study. However, two important potential conflicts of interest among the sources were not disclosed. In addition, the story contains lots of helpful detail on the limitations of the study, the possibility that placebo effects are at play, and how medical practice may or may not change as a result. It also discussed the costs and potential harms of stenting procedures. That said, the story could have provided more information on what the study itself measuredand what, precisely, the results were. The Wall Street Journal story, which we also reviewed, was stronger on this point. Heart disease is still the leading killer of Americans so any news about treating aspects of heart disease, such as blocked arteries, is newsworthy. In addition, this story suggests that stenting common, but expensive is a prime example of over-treatment. Also the procedure carries some risk and may be causing complications if overused.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The story does not describe the cost of CA-125. The story adequately quantifies the survival benefit with CA-125 compared to no testing. The story adequately describes the major harm of CA-125 testing, which is that it could lead to unnecessary treatment in women who would not benefit from it. The story does a good job of describing the current study and placing the results in context with current clinical thinking. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of Ovarian Cancer. The story quotes several experts who are not involved in the story, providing valuable perspective on the results. Clearly no testing is the alternative to CA-125. The story could have also mentioned regular imaging tests as a way to monitor for recurrent cancer. Clearly CA-125 is available. Clearly CA-125 testing for recurrent Ovarian Cancer is not a new idea. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information. Claim: Doubts on Ovarian Cancer Relapse Test
[EX A]:
CA-125 is the only existing blood test or tumor marker that is used for ovarian cancer follow-up. It measures a microscopic substance which is produced by the tumor and breaks off, circulating in the bloodstream. It is not elevated in every patient with ovarian cancer, and can be falsely elevated in people who have no diagnosis of cancer. That is why it is not very good for ovarian cancer screening. This story reports on new results showing that women who got regular CA-125 testing after treatment for ovarian cancer did not have better survival than women who got no testing. These results further call into question the utility of CA-125 for monitoring recurrent ovarian cancer. This story accurately describes the novelty, availability and harms of CA-125. It does not engage in disease mongering and does a good job of describing the current study and how it relates to current clinical thinking. The story could have been improved by describing the costs of CA-125 testing. This study and this story about it adds to the "more is not always better" knowledgebase that is growing in health care. Kudos to the NYT and to this reporter for doing a good job with it.