You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

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.
Why? 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: Paragraph: The article doesn't mention costs of "active surveillance" or any other treatment strategy. There is a cost associated with any of these choices. Because of the uncertainty over treatment benefit, quantification of benefits, such as how much longer can one expect to live or how many lives are saved can't be known. However, the article could have been more explicit about the issue of uncertain benefits with aggressive treatment for early prostate cancer. The article does a good job of discussing harms of treatment, including risk of losing an opportunity to cure one's disease by waiting, risk of sexual problems and leaking urine with treatment, and risk of having treatment and subsequent side effects and still having prostate cancer threaten your life. The story is an informational piece about prostate cancer treament in general, making this a difficult criterion to evalaute. However, one overarching message is that there is a great deal of uncertainty around treating early prostate cancer. With that in mind, the article does describe that there are no direct head to head trials comparing surgery and radiation treatments, which accounts for much of the uncertainty. It remains controversial whether any aggressive treatment of early prostate cancer is effective. The article does a terrific job of discussing early prostate cancer, includuing the fact that many prostate cancers are slow-growing, that many men will die of something else, and that many men may never need treatment. It also does a good job of comparing and contrasting what a man might have to gain and lose with and without treatment. Calling surgeons "medical artists" is a bit dramatic, but this term is attributed to patient support groups. The story used several independent sources of information and for that we give it a satisfactory score. However, one concern is reporting that "researchersand a few doctorsare beginning to agree" about waiting for treatment. Many of the researchers are themselves doctors, so this is clumsily confusing. The article does a nice job of comparing and contrasting treatment options, including active surveillance, surgery, and radiation. It also talks about hormone therapy, but appropriately cautions readers about what is and isn't known about the timing of this option as well. The article describes several available treatment choices currently being used for prostate cancer. This story refers to "active surveillance" as the "newest thinking in the disease." However, this really isn't a new treatment option and is widely used in other countries. It's probably more accurate to describe this as a treatment that is chosen less commonly rather than a new treatment. There is no evidence that this story relied solely or largely on a news release. Claim: Fighting prostate cancer by doing nothing
Solution:
The article provides an overview of treatment for early prostate cancer. Major strengths of the article are that the true natural history of prostate cancer is accurately described, namely that prostate cancer is slow-growing, many men will die of something else, and that men may not need to be treated at all. The article also does a good job of comparing and contrasting what men might stand to gain or lose by undergoing treatment or by waiting. Information on costs could improve the article as well as stating more explicitly that the benefit of aggressive treatment of early prostate cancer is unknown and/or uncertain.