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 Input: Paragraph: The story focused on costs, including information about the relative cost comparison between what are called "open" surgeries and those done laparoscopically (with a thin flexible tube.) The release summarized how minimally invasive techniques reduced the length of hospital stay and complication rates for patients. "Researchers also found that, on average, the minimally invasive approach reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days, and open operations were more than $9,000 more expensive than minimally invasive procedures. The researchers also found that laparoscopic procedures were better for patients in terms of fewer complications. Laparoscopic anti-reflux operations were less likely to result in postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death." We rate this, but just barely, for citing cost differences between the two types of surgery and the average reduction in the number of days a patient must remain hospitalized. We do wish the release had delved more into the specifics of reduced complications. How common were the surgical complications in each surgical method? The release names complications associated with both types of surgery for GERD, while stating that patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures encountered fewer of them: "postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death." The news release gave details about how the study examined records of about 75,000 patients from 1,000 hospitals to compare outcomes in the records for open vs. the minimally invasive laparoscopic surgeries. That's all to the good. However, the news release didn't mention any of the study's limitations. The key one is that this is a retrospective, observational review of records that isn't capable of supporting cause and effect statements such as the minimally invasive approach "reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days." Nor should this kind of evidence be used as the basis for statements such as laparoscopic procedures "were better for patients" and "should be the standard of care." Patients receiving open vs. laparascopic procedures could differ in unknown ways, which is why the superiority of one approach over the other should ideally be established by a prospective, randomized controlled trial. There were other limitations outlined in the journal article that were not mentioned in the release. Because the NIS database doesn't link to hospital records, researchers weren't able to track and measure outcomes "including complications, readmission, and mortality, occurring after the initial hospital discharge." The researchers were also unable to determine which open surgeries were "re-dos" of previous surgeries. The potential for errors in coding which procedures were used was also cited as a possible limitation. There was no disease mongering. The release also provided useful context on the prevalence of GERD and further specified that smaller group of patients, from the many heartburn suffers, might be candidates for the surgery. Well done. The release does not list any funding source for the research and the published study notes that authors had "nothing to disclose." We'll rate this not applicable since this is an examination of existing data, and there may have been no additional outside funding. The news release does a good job here. It compares different surgical methods and it also names alternatives for treating GERD such as medications and changes in the diet. It also states which group of patients the surgery is aimed at: "Anti-reflux surgery should be considered in patients who do not achieve complete control of their symptoms [regurgitation or cough] with medications; who do not want to take medications for the rest of their lives; or who experience complications of medical therapy." It's clear from the release that both methods of surgery have been widely available nationally and the outcomes of 75,000 surgeries were tracked by the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. The release also notes that "urban academic or teaching hospitals" perform laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery more often than "open" procedures, 54.4 percent versus 45.6 percent. And it recommends that anti-reflux surgery should be performed laparoscopically in specialized centers. The news release was not about a novel procedure and made no claim of novelty. However, this isn't the first study to examine laparoscopic vs. open surgery. For example, the British Journal of Surgery published results of a randomized trial of the two methods and the Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology published research on long-term outcomes following laparoscopic and open procedures for GERD. We did not observe any unjustifiable language. Claim: Laparoscopic anti-reflux operation for GERD linked to fewer postoperative complications
Example Output: A new study by the American College of Surgeons, a professional organization, compared records for 75,000 patients who underwent surgery for GERD, or gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease. The study looked at two different surgical procedures and found the less invasive one seemed equally effective, but kept patients in the hospital a shorter time with fewer complications. The news release did a good job of discussing surgical alternatives and costs, which were estimated to be $9,000 lower for the less invasive laparoscopic procedure. The release would have been better had it spelled out some of the study limitations, the key one being that a retrospective, observational review of hospital records as this study was isn't capable of supporting the cause and effect statements sprinkled throughout the release. Millions of Americans complain of occasional heartburn, sometimes called a burning sensation in the throat from food coming back up from the stomach. But some estimates are that about 20 percent of US adults fit the definition of GERD, which means they suffer symptoms at least every week. If patients consider a surgical fix, this study shows that a less-invasive procedure could reduce their complications and shorten their hospital stay. It's hard to pin down stats on GERD prevalence. A 2014 review of 16 epidemiological studies of GERD prevalence published in the journal Gut suggest GERD prevalence ranges from "18.1%-27.8% in North America, 8.8%-25.9% in Europe, 2.5%-7.8% in East Asia, 8.7%-33.1% in the Middle East, 11.6% in Australia and 23.0% in South America."

Example Input: Paragraph: The Alaska Section of Epidemiology said in an update this week that it has requested help with response efforts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, KTVA-TV reported Wednesday. The number of cases is the highest reported in the state since at least the 1970s, said Susan Jones, a program manager with the state Division of Public Health. "It actually can be before that but that's as far back as we have saved data," Jones said. Out of the 75 cases, 64 occurred in Anchorage and 66 were men, according to the state. Of the nine women, two were pregnant at the time of diagnosis. The ages of people infected ranged from 18 to 76, with 20 cases recorded in the 25 to 29 age group. Health officials also found a probable case of congenital syphilis in an infant born in March whose mother had been diagnosed last year. Symptoms of the sexually transmitted infection in its early stages include genital sores, skin rash, swollen lymph nodes, and fever, according to the CDC. The disease in the tertiary stage can damage internal organs and result in death. According to the CDC, most people with untreated syphilis do not develop symptoms of the last stage, but tertiary syphilis could develop decades after infection. "It's easy to acquire syphilis by having sex with somebody with infection, it's easy to have the disease and not be aware of it, and it's also easy to treat if we catch it early," Jones said. Syphilis can be treated with an antibiotic injection. ___ Information from: KTVA-TV, http://www.ktva.com Claim: Alaska hit with largest syphilis outbreak in 40 years.
Example Output: Alaska health officials have recorded 75 cases of syphilis in the state this year, marking the largest outbreak of the infectious disease in at least four decades.

Example Input: Paragraph: "The story cites costs at one center of $3,000 for 40 treatment sessions. As the article makes clear, there is no high-quality research into the treatment's efficacy. The article fails to make the risks of hyperbaric oxygen treatment clear. Risks include: seizures; problems in the lungs, eyes and vascular system; and isolated pockets of pain. Rarely, the symptoms are very serious. The treatment is contraindicated for certain patients, such as diabetics. The equipment is a serious fire hazard. The story should have cited all this. It should also have warned readers that the risks of side effects and fires are likely to be higher when conducted outside of a hospital environment by non-physicians, which appears to be the way the centers in the article operate. There is no good evidence to demonstrate the efficacy or safety of hyperbaric oxygen treatment for autism. The story makes this very clear in several places and mentions some of the ongoing research whose results are expected soon. The report does nothing to exaggerate the prevalence or severity of autism. While it includes anecdotes that imply efficacy of the oxygen treatment, it does so in a context of appropriately skeptical reportage. The article quotes the following sources: While this sourcing favors supporters, the reporter discloses or implies the conflicts of interest the clinic operators have. The two skeptical medical sources are highly credible. All things considered, the story minimally achieves a ""satisfactory"" rating on this criterion. While autism is not curable, it is treatable. Early behavioral interventions are showing some promise [though they too are unsupported by gold-standard evidence]. Other approaches, including medications and diet, can control some symptoms associated with the underlying condition. Chelation is another controversial, non-medically-proven treatment. The story should have put oxygen therapy in the context of conventional and other treatments. The story mentions two centers in its circulation area where hyperbaric oxygen treatment is available. It implies it is available in centers and hospital scattered around the country. The report includes the name of a trade group, allowing anybody who wants to find a center to do so. The article makes no claims of novelty. It makes it clear that autism is a ""new market"" for ""an industry that has served mostly scuba divers, stroke victims, and people recovering from wounds."" It correctly describes the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for autism as a rare treatment growing in popularity among parents seeking alternative tratments. It's clear that this story didn't rely solely or largely on a news release." Claim: Oxygen therapy breathes new life into autism treatment
Example Output:
Reporting on an alternative treatment for autism is always riskythe condition is disabling, the science poor, the anecdotes powerful, the parents emotional and the providers self-interested. This story, which focsues on the use of hyperbaric oxygen treatments for autism, does a decent job navigating the minefield. Three best practices the story follows include: Putting compelling anecdotes and the voices of supporters in a context of responsible skepticism Mentioning repeatedly that the treatment is not medically supported for autism Using a range of sources, including two highly credible skeptics, and disclosing (or implying) the self-interest of those who support the treatment On balance, however, the story gives more space to supporters [10 paragraphs] than to skeptics [4] or neutral information [4]. This makes the story incline at least slightly in the positive direction. The most serious flaws of the story include: A failure to put this treatment in the context of conventional approaches A failure to spell out the potential risks of the treatment, which are considerable. Given the fact that hyperbaric oxygen treatment is uNPRoven and [therefore] elective, readers need to understand the risks. Having said all this: The reader is likely to take away the impression that this treatment is on the fringe, growing in popularity, and medically uNPRoven. Given all the things that can go wrong with an autism story, this is a positive outcome.