Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: 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.
Explanation: 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.

Problem: Paragraph: Detailed results will be presented at an unspecified medical conference, the company added. ViiV, in which Pfizer and Shionogi have small stakes, is working on two-drug combinations and will use the lower drug burden in comparison with three-drug cocktails such as Gilead's Biktarvy as its main selling point to patients and physicians. It is banking on longer-term studies to yield hard evidence of fewer side effects over time. ViiV has taken a two-pronged approach. While its once-a-day pill Dovato, also a two-drug combination, won U.S. market approval in April, the company is following up with a longer-acting injection combining the two active ingredients cabotegravir and Janssen's rilpivirine. The injection has previously proven to be as effective as standard daily pills with three active ingredients when administered monthly. Thursday's results showed that doubling the time between injections does not compromise efficacy or safety. Injections - targeted at patients unable to take, or not comfortable with, daily pills - are, however, seen as a smaller market opportunity than oral medicines. "This is further progress in our efforts to reduce the number of medicines a person living with HIV must take while also reducing the frequency of treatments," said Kimberly Smith, Head of Research & Development at ViiV. The trial focused on the HIV-1 category of the AIDS virus, which has the most widespread strains. If not quelled, an HIV infection causes AIDS, a deadly condition that severely weakens the immune system. U.S. drugmaker Gilead dominates the HIV market and it will keep up the pressure with fast-growing Biktarvy, which was approved early last year. Analysts on average expect sales from the product to reach $5 billion next year, according to Refinitiv data. Claim: GSK's long acting HIV injection gets boost from study.
Solution:
GlaxoSmithKline's experimental HIV injection is as effective when given every other month as monthly, according to a study, a convenience that could help the British drugmaker in its battle against a rival drug from Gilead Sciences.GSK's two-drug injection was as effective as a monthly dose of the same regimen in maintaining viral suppression at 48 weeks in a late-stage study, said ViiV Healthcare, GSK's HIV unit.