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: Although there was no discussion of costs, the article was clear in stating that vaccines arefor the most partin an early stage of development, so this omission is understandable. We wanted to seebetter coverage of the data here. The story leads with an anecdote about a patient who kicked a pack-a-day smoking habit after treatment with a nicotinevaccine in a study. And later,the story says that smokers who received thatvaccine were "about three times as likely to be off cigarettes 44 weeks after vaccination than subjects given a placebo."The story should have providedthe absolute rates of success reported in the study, which were only 16% for the treatment group compared with 6% for the placebo group, according to theheart.org. Elsewhere,the storydescribes an experimental anticocaine vaccine that was apparently very effective in a mouse study; it could have reported onphase II human data that is available for theTA-CDanticocaine vaccine that was also mentioned in the story. These data again suggest that only a minority of patientsmay benefit from the use of anti-addictionvaccines. The story states that "clinical trials have so far revealed no significant side effects" from vaccine treatments. However, we think the story should have included an important caveat: that these are early stagetrials involving small numbers of patients thatcan't provideconclusive evidence of safety. In addition, it should be recognized that addictions arechronic conditions and these vaccine treatments are likely to be long-term as well. Therefore, longer-term adverse effects should be expected, especially for a treatment that interferes with molecules closely related to the body's natural chemical messengers. The story could have been a bit more circumspect on this point. The promise of this new vaccine technology is counterbalanced by coverage of the uncertainties. The story gives appropriate weightto thedisappointing resultsreported in a number of early clinical studies, noting: "Failures have so far outnumbered successes." The story adds thateven in one of the successful vaccine studies, the benefitswere not as robust as those seen with a smoking cessation drug that is already on the market. There also is no prospect for a vaccine to treat alcoholism, according to the story. The article should have been more direct about the limitations of mouse research, and there was not enough detailon thedata publishedin the various studies reported on (a deficiency we address under the "Benefits" criterion). However, since the story was trying to present a broad overview of happenings in the field and wasn't attempting to summarize any particular study, we'll give the benefit of the doubt here and award a satisfactory. The story didn't exaggerate the effects ofsubstanceabusedisorders or otherwise engage in disease-mongering. The sourcing of this story was good. We hear fromacademics, government researchers, and industry executives. Their voices provide balance and give texture to the coverage. It should be noted, however, that most of these experts have a vested interest in the field or the success of a particular treatment, whether because of industry ties or because they are leading experiments ona particular approach. Even the government experts might be biased by their provision of significant financial support for research in this area. It would have been nice to heara comment about the vaccines from someonewho is certifiably free of all potential conflicts. But we can't justify docking pointssince there is no voice that is overly enthusiastic about the concept. The story compares the potential of vaccines with the benefits of existing medications for addictionand notes that theavailable drugs might work better. We would liketo haveseen more ink givento the role ofbehavioralapproaches in the management of addiction, which are supported by considerable evidence. However,the story does acknowledgethatvaccines "would likely be used alongside psychological therapy."We'll call it good enough for a satisfactory. The article helpfully states that "It could be years, if ever, before any vaccines to treat addiction reach the market." The article does a good job of describing how far along the various experimental vaccines mentioned in the article are in their development. Although the story could haveprovided more background on the history ofanti-addiction vaccines (aheroin vaccine was explored in the 1970s), the treatments being explored now are different fromanything currently available. So we don't think this story overstates thenoveltyof the research. This story is not based on a news release. Claim: Quest for Vaccines to Treat Addiction
Answer:
Through its well-sourced coverage, the story conveysthat vaccines probably won'tcure addictionsas successfullyas theypreventpolio. There's also a nice explanationof the science behind this technology and asummary of thechallengesthat remain to be addressed. However, we wanted tosee a lotmore detail on the data that have been presented so far, and, ideally, greatercaution about the potential harms of these vaccines. Although they appear safe,more testing is required before we can be confident about their long-term effects. The search for an easy fix to addictions a silver bullet has a long, venerable, and disappointing history. The most effective treatments so far are substitution therapies, such as methadone, buprenorphine, and varenicline. "Blocking" therapies, into which category vaccines would fit, have only been marginally effective, if at all. The pace of development of effective treatments has accelerated in recent years, andvaccine researchmay one day yield additionaloptions for people who are serious about kicking their habits and need more help. At this point, however, there's not much reason to believethat this approach will be moresuccessful than existing therapies. It's more realistic to view vaccines as one among severalpotential options not a panacea.