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.
One example is below.
Q: 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
A: 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.
Rationale: 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.
Q: Paragraph: This story not only mentions the cost for this drug but also for other treatments for osteoporosis as well. The story did a great job of distinguishing among various fracture types and reporting both relative and absolute risk reduction for vertebra fracture. But then it was disappointing that the risk reduction for hip fractures and that of wrist, leg, or shoulder were reported as only relative risk reduction. Since the story characterized hip fractures as 'devastating', it should have provided the reader with some sense of how frequently they occur rather than simply indicating how often they result in a person entering a nursing home or dying within 5 years of having one. Nonethless, because of the elements that were well done, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story gave a rather complete listing of the potential harms associated with the use of this drug, including specific mention of those problems that are unique to this drug as compared with other medications used to manage bone loss. Although the list was complete, the story did not indicate the frequency with which these harms occurred. Nonethless, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. The story provided information about the clinical trial it described, including the number of people studied, the length of time they were studied and the impact on various types of fractures. The story only indicated lifetime risks of fracture (i.e. 1 out of every 2 women over the age of 50) and that 25% of people die within 5 years of breaking a hip without providing some context for these concerns. The 5 year risk of fracture for a woman aged 55 is not the same as that for a woman aged 75; similarly, there are other factors compounding the statistic about death following hip fracture. Since the drug is marketed as being for women who are postmenopausal, rather than simply parroting these seemingly alarming pieces of information, the story should have provided more context for these statistics. This was one weak point in an overall strong story but an important nuance that should not be overlooked. Comments about this drug and its potential utility from two clinicians noted as not having industry ties to this or other osteoporosis drugs were included in this story. This story compared the benefits, harms and costs for the new drug, with those treatments already on the market. The story opens with a statement about this drug's approval by the FDA. The story provided a useful explanation of how this medication differed from the other treatments available for osteoporosis. Does not appear to rely exclusively on a news release. Claim: The pros and cons of Prolia, Amgen's new osteoporosis drug
A:
The story detailed what is known about the impact of this drug on various types of bone fractures associated with osteoporosis, how its mode of action is someone different than other osteoporosis treatments, its administration and how the costs compare with other treatments. The one shortcoming of the story was that it had elements of disease-mongering, as explained below. The gestalt about osteoporosis is that women should live in fear of bone breaks. While the story provided very good information about this new treatment, it did not provide much context about the problem. And its inconsistent use of relative vs. absolute risk/benefit data didn't help.