Teacher: 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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following 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
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.
Reason: 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.

Now, solve this instance: Paragraph: University of Iowa scientists used pigs to mimic the cascade of cartilage damage that can begin with a broken ankle. Wednesday's study found using some old medications in a new way rapidly injecting them into the animals' joints interrupted that cycle of cell dysfunction to protect against arthritis. The researchers are seeking funds for human studies, part of a growing effort to understand why an aggressive form of arthritis can develop after some common orthopedic injuries a torn knee ligament, for example, or a broken bone in a joint seem to have healed. "It's very promising," said regenerative medicine specialist Farshid Guilak of Washington University in St. Louis, who wasn't involved in the new study. "There are no therapies right now, for any form of osteoarthritis, that have been shown to modify the disease." Osteoarthritis, the most common kind, usually occurs when joint-cushioning cartilage gradually wears away over decades of use. But about 5.6 million people in the U.S. get a subtype that strikes faster post-traumatic osteoarthritis that's sparked by injuries to weight-bearing joints. People who've experienced knee injuries, for example, are three to six times more likely to develop arthritis in that joint, and to get it a decade or so earlier, than people who've never been injured, according to a report last year in the Journal of Athletic Training. And ankle fractures that crack into the cartilage can trigger post-traumatic osteoarthritis even faster, making it ideal to study in the joints of 200-pound pigs that react a lot like human ankles. With funding from the Defense Department and National Institutes of Health, the Iowa team took a closer look. Only some cartilage cells die immediately upon impact. But over the next 48 hours, additional ones die and others become increasingly dysfunctional. Inside cells are tiny power plants, often introduced in middle-school biology as "the mighty mitochondria." Somehow, the joint injury triggered the mitochondria inside cartilage cells to become wildly overactive and generate substances called oxidants in a damaging cycle. "What's compelling," said University of Iowa lead researcher Mitchell Coleman, "is if you can interrupt that early process, whatever is going on with those mitochondria in the first day, you can have a significant benefit to the tissue itself." That's just what his team did, using two old drugs the sedative amobarbital, known to inhibit cellular energy generation, and an antioxidant named N-acetylcysteine to aim at different parts of that cycle. To act inside the joint without body-wide side effects, the researchers created, and patented, gel formulas of the drugs that are liquid while being injected but solidify at body temperature. They injected one or the other drug into the pigs' joint fractures, following the injury and a week later. "It will sit there where you injected it," Coleman explained. A typical liquid drug "will squish right back out." Each drug separately helped preserve cartilage, the team reported Wednesday in the journal Science Translational Medicine. A year later, the cartilage in the treated animals showed significantly less deterioration than pigs given sham treatment, and the treated animals displayed no signs of pain. It will take lots of additional research to tell if the approach works in people. For now, people who've had risky joint injuries should guard against further damage by getting proper treatment for the injury and keeping up appropriate exercise, said Dr. Lisa Cannada, a trauma specialist speaking for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. "Maintain strong muscles to minimize the wear and tear on your joints," she advised. Claim: Scientists aim at joint injuries that can trigger arthritis.
Student:
Arthritis isn't always from the wear and tear of getting older younger adults too often get it after suffering knee or ankle injuries. Now researchers are hunting a way to stave off the damage, by targeting the little energy factories that power cartilage cells.