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: A woman walks along the boardwalk while leaving the U.S. Open tennis tournament in New York September 4, 2007. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson Mark Bear and colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology studied the effects of a chemical that suppresses appetite by blocking cannabinoid receptors in the brain, the same brain mechanisms that make people hungry when they smoke marijuana. "I think that the cautionary note is that these mechanisms play an important role in ... brain development," said Bear, whose study appears in the journal Neuron. Sanofi-Aventis' weight-loss pill rimonabant, also known as Zimulti and sold under the brand name Acomplia in Europe, is the first in this new class of drugs. A U.S. expert panel rejected it last June because of fears it might trigger suicidal thoughts. Other drugmakers, including Merck & Co Inc, are working on similar drugs. Bear's team at MIT was hoping to gain insight into how the brain adapts and rewires itself through learned experiences. This so-called plasticity is central to the development of neurons in the brain of children and young animals. Bear said these cannabinoid receptors are known to regulate signals between neurons, and his team wanted to see if they would have an effect on plasticity in these young mice. They were specifically testing learning in the visual cortex of the mouse, a part of the brain that processes information gathered from what they see. Their experiments tested how well the animals adapted if one eye was closed. The researchers did not use rimonabant in the study. Instead, they used a chemical analog or copy in this case a drug available for laboratory use known as AM 251. When they gave the mice AM 251 to block their cannabinoid receptors, the animals still behaved as if both eyes were open. This suggested the visual cortex was not adapting as it should. "Our finding of a profound disruption of cortical plasticity in juvenile mice treated with AM 251 suggests caution is advised in the use of such compounds in children," the researchers wrote. Bear said the finding is similar to the situation with many drugs. "You have to weigh the benefits against the risks. If the benefit is related more to vanity than morbidity, I don't think the risks are tolerable," he said. Sanofi-Aventis spokeswoman Julissa Viana said rimonabant is not approved for use in children. "At this point in time it is approved for use in adults who are overweight and obese with cardiovascular risk factors," she said. "We don't encourage its use in children and it has not been studied nor is it indicated for use in children." A woman walks along the boardwalk while leaving the U.S. Open tennis tournament in New York September 4, 2007. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson The finding is the latest blow for rimonabant, which once was predicted to be a multibillion-dollar seller. A study last month of the drug in obese heart patients found more than 40 percent of patients who took the drug developed psychiatric problems. But last month the drugmaker Sanofi said it still believes Acomplia can be a winner and reiterated plans to submit the drug worldwide as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in 2009. Claim: Weight-loss drugs may harm developing brain: study.
A:
A drug from a new class of weight-loss treatments disrupted wiring needed for brain development in young mice, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday, raising concerns about using such medications in children.