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 states that a $25 blood test can identify someone with a thyroid disorder. The costs associated with daily hormone therapy are not discussed. The article does an excellent job explaining the importance of thyroid hormones during pregnancy for fetal brain development, especially during the first trimester. It also points out the role in preventing miscarriage and premature birth. Furthermore, the story thoroughly details the risks that come with an overactive or an underactive thyroid gland for the average person. The article mentions that, for mild cases of hypothyroidism, scientists are unsure whether diagnoses and subsequent treatment sufficiently help pregnant patients or, instead, waste money on blood testing and thyroid medication. This is appropriately stated high up (in the first third) in the report. The article briefly mentions that the Quest Diagnostics study looked at records and surveys from half a million pregnant women, but apart from this fact, the story does not outline any more research methods or protocol. We could interpret the findings better if we knew, for example: There is no disease mongering in this story. The article gives appropriate and sufficient background information on various thyroid disorders and how they could affect pregnant women. The comment from Dr. Dena Goffman of New York's Montefiore Medical Center offers an outside perspective on the research and the "long-running controversy" regarding thyroid testing for pregnant women. However, researchers at Quest Diagnostics one of the world's biggest companies for diagnostic services conducted this study, which found a "higher-than-expected" number of pregnant women with underactive thyroids. Whether Quest Diagnostics funded the study, or whether Dr. Elizabeth Pearce had ties to the company, were not explicitly discussed. The story offers different perspectives and guidelines on thyroid screening from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Thyroid Association. The story makes it clear that "nearly a quarter of pregnant women are getting the simple thyroid blood test regardless of whether they have symptoms." Thyroid function screening via a blood test is not a new concept. The question is whether milder cases of hypothyroidism in pregnant women should be treated with daily hormone therapy. In general, the article does an excellent job laying out both sides of the issue. There was no evidence that the story relied solely on a press release. Claim: Debate over who needs a thyroid check in pregnancy
Solution:
The article gives extensive context to the recent Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism study and refers to other research done in the field. The article effectively breaks down and explains a complex debate in the physician community whether all pregnant women should be screened for thyroid function and whether women with milder cases of hypothyroidism should be diagnosed and treated. The story says this will "add pressure" for science to settle this issue, but that pressure already exists from endocrinologists and obstetricians with, as the study shows, about 1 in 5 pregnant women being tested from 2005-8.