Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. 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
Answer: 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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: There was no discussion of costs. The story clearly mentioned the reduction in hospitalization time, need for blood transfusions, and internal scarring were benefits of the procedure though it did not provide quantitative details. In addition,the story did provide quantitative data on the 30-day risk ofsexual and urinary function complications. Clearly elaborated. The story provided information that would better enable people to read between the lines and ask relevant questions about claims made with respect to outcomes following surgery. It described a study comparing outcomes for men having their prostates removed using different approaches. It also included sufficient detail for readers to understand some of the limitations about the study data. Howeverthe story is incorrect in stating that it's not clear whether either surgery is superior to watchful waiting. In fact, the traditional surgery has been proven to reduce the risk of dying from prostate cancer compared to watchful waiting in a controlled trialthe highest level of evidence. But and this is important in the context of this particular story there is no similar evidence for the laparoscopic surgeries. The story did not engage in disease mongering. Comments from several clinicians were included in this piece to point out some of the potential confounders with the study results. It was mildly amusing that one of the clinicians interviewed stated categorically that there are over800 previous studies on robot-assisted prostate -v the majority of which demonstrate superiority. This is an awfully large number of studies about a relatively new technology; further, one of the important points of this story is that there are both short term and longer term outcomes to be considered. The story mentioned different approaches to the removal of the prostate as well as complete list of the treatment options for early stage prostate cancer. The story indicated that the robotic apparatus needed for the procedure reported on is not available in all facilities though it was becoming more common. The story included the trajectory of use for the treatment. Does not appear to rely on a press release. Claim: Robotic prostate surgery may mean big trade-off
Answer:
A very informative story that helps frame for readers some of the complications with respect to treatment options. In the face of claims in advertisements, it provided a clear set of questions about issues that may otherwise be bypassed. Especially with respect to a treatment option that on the surface appears to be the latest and greatest, it is helpful to remind consumers that there are long term issues to be considered as well as the highlighted short term gains. This was a valuable story that can be used by readers to prepare questions to help them assess the relative value in the treatment options available.