Detailed Instructions: 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.
See one example below:
Problem: 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.
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.

Problem: Paragraph: The story did not discuss cost. There are dozens of fish oil supplements on the market and their cost varies widely. The story could have given some sense of the financial impact that this regimen would have. This was a strong point of the story, giving us both absolute and relative risk figures up front in the second paragraph: Among children whose mothers took fish-oil capsules, 16.9 percent had asthma by age 3, compared with 23.7 percent whose mothers were given placebos. The difference, nearly 7 percentage points, translates to a risk reduction of about 31 percent. Too often, even when stories do provide absolute risk figures, they highlight relative risks high up in the story and bury the absolute risk information far down in the text where it's less likely to be read. The story explains that no adverse events were associated with the intervention. However, the harms assessed by the researchers were things like maternal or infant death, emergency caesarean delivery, and preterm birth. They didn't assess (and the story didn't mention) less serious harms like fishy taste, nausea, belching, and heartburn that are commonly associated with fish oil capsules and which might make this regimen burdensome for pregnant women. Moreover, it would have been useful if the story had also noted that the reason researchers want to replicate the results in a larger group of women is to make sure these very high doses of fish oil are indeed safe. The story gives us details of the studyhow many women were enrolled, that there was a placebo group, and that the children were followed for seven years. An independent source also explains that the study was "well designed and carefully performed." The story does not disease mongerchildhood asthma is a common and often exasperating condition that many parents grapple with. The story clearly explains who funded the study, and includes an independent source. But it doesn't note the extensive conflicts of interest reported by the lead author who's quoted in the piece: Dr. Bisgaard reports receiving consulting fees from Chiesi Pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim, and Drs. Bisgaard and Bnnelykke report being named on a pending patent related to the prevention of childhood asthma through FADS genotyping and the assessment of blood levels of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid in pregnant mothers. The patent filing related to genetic testing is particularly relevant, given that the researcher advocates genetic testing and testing of fish oil levels in pregnant women to determine who might benefit most from supplementation. Aside from avoidance of maternal smoking, there are no known ways to reduce the risk of developing asthma in childhood. The story explains this is why doctors are testing this method, and excited by the findings. The story explains that the"capsules were an over-the-counter product called Incromega TG33/22, a fish extract made by the British chemical company Croda Health Care." And in regard to whether women should start taking the supplement to lower asthma risk in their babies, the story lets us know researchers "are not ready to recommend that pregnant women routinely take fish oil" due to the very high dose used in this study. Further research is needed firstto establish safety and confirm benefit. We learn that previous studies on this topic were inconclusive, and so the inference is that this is the first time more conclusive results were seen, especially regarding the benefit in women who had lower-than-normal levels of the fatty acids in their blood. This story did not rely on the news release. Claim: Taking Fish Oil During Pregnancy Is Found to Lower Child's Asthma Risk
Solution:
This New York Times story looks at a new study showing a reduced risk of asthma inthe children of mothers who took high doses of fish oil during the last trimester of pregnancy. The story was strongit did a lot of things well. We were especially pleased to see the Times use both absolute and relative risk numbers when conveying the measured benefit. We learn, for example, that fish oil reduced the risk of asthma 31 percent, the relative risk benefit. That is tempered by inclusion of the absolute risk reduction16.9% of mothers who supplemented had children with asthma, compared to 23.7 of mothers taking a placebo. This helps readers keep expectations in check. The main shortcoming is the story's failure to disclose relevant conflicts of interest. One of the researchers has a financial interest in the genetic testing he advocates in the story and readers should be aware of that interest as they consider his recommendations. Other than avoidance of smoking by the mother, there is currently no known way to prevent asthma from developing in a child, and the World Health Organization defines its global healthand economic impact as "severe." Given how common this disease is, news coverage on this study will be highly read, making it vital to distillthe results accurately. This story did so, and provided important context to let parents know that researchers aren't yet ready to recommend high-dose fish oil supplementation to pregnant women.