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
Example 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.
Example 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: The news release does not mention costs. While a new therapy may not have an established price, the release could have stated "no price is available for this drug." What would be even better is some context for what women suffering from postpartum pay typically for counseling and medications. The release notes that there was a reduction in depressive symptoms of 17 points for those on the drug, and 12.8 for those in the placebo group based on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. The absolute reduction in the rating scale is given for each group. This information would have been much more helpful if the release also clarified the magnitude of the scale and whether a 4.2-point difference is clinically meaningful. The release contains one somewhat vague sentence on harms. The most common (10% of subjects) adverse events following during brexanolone injection administration were headache, dizziness and somnolence. Readers would also be interested in details on whether the drug is safe for nursing infants. That's not mentioned. The double-blinded randomized trials are described in detail and readers are able to judge the quality of the evidence. The published study includes an important limitation of the research that's not mentioned in the release: The trials assessed women for only 30 days; the effects of the treatment beyond 30 days are "unknown." There is no disease mongering. The release explains how common postpartum depression is worldwide. The release notes that Sage Therapeutics funded the research. Sage Therapeutics is the developer of brexanolone injection and sponsor of the trials. A New Drug Application is currently under review by the FDA and brexanolone injection has been granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation. The FDA has assigned a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of December 19, 2018. What the release doesn't tell us is that both quoted researchers disclosed financial ties with Sage Therapeutics. This information was included in the studies published in the Lancet. SM-B reports personal fees from MedScape and grants from Sage Therapeutics, awarded to the University of North Carolina DRR reports personal fees and has stock options in Sage Therapeutics. The release mentions that women currently can receive antidepressants for postpartum depression, but that the new drug being studied goes to work relieving symptoms faster than traditional antidepressants days rather than weeks. The release notes that the drug is currently under FDA review, with a decision on its approval expected by the end of the year. The release notes that the new drug would be a novel treatment for postpartum depression, if approved. There is no unjustifiable language. Claim: Newly Published Results Show Investigational Treatment Brexanolone Consistently Reduced Depressive Symptoms Across Three Postpartum Depression Trials, Supporting Submission for FDA Approval
Solution: An injectable drug, brexanolone, showed some effectiveness in treating postpartum depression in two phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled trials including 247 women from 30 different research centers, according to research led by the University of North Carolina. Their research showed reductions in reported depression symptoms among study volunteers receiving either the drug or placebo (17 points for those on the drug, compared to a reduction of 12.8 points reduction for those on a placebo). This study about a potential new drug is important, but the way it is reported leaves holes for the reader. The research was funded by the drug maker, Sage Therapeutics, and the two researchers quoted in the release have financial links to the drug manufacturer. The release should have given us more context about the amount of improvement, and been straightforward about the conflicts of interest. The American Psychological Association estimates that up to one-in-seven women in the US suffer from some form of postpartum depression, and this disorder can linger for some of them and interfere with their bonding with their child. Existing treatments, such as talk therapy and antidepressants are not always successful and may take weeks to improve the situation. If approved by the FDA, the drug could be an advance in the treatment of postpartum depression which is common and sometimes serious.