You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
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.

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.
Why? 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.

New input: Paragraph: There was no discussion of the potential cost of the drug. Since the story briefly discusses "a similar drug" it could have at least given the cost of that drug. As it is, cost is unaddressed a huge vacuum. The benefits are quantified. Women who received Iniparib plus chemotherapy lived an average of 12.3 months while those receiving chemotherapy alone lived an average of 7.7 months. Tumor volume decreasedin 50% of the women receiving Iniparib & 33% of women receiving only chemotherapy. While the researcher believed the drug was well-tolerated, the article should have included information about demonstrated side effects, even minor ones. The author also should have noted if the study was powered to detect differences since the study cohort was so small. The evaluation of the evidence was good. The piece included cautionary quotes from the researcher. Quotes from a journal editorial also specified drawbacks of the study. Three of the four drawbacks listed were not explained in the piece. Explanations would have been helpful especially since the piece termed the chemotherapy regimen "commonly used" but one drawback was "the unconventional chemotherapy regimen." There is no disease mongering. The article does not include information about Dr. O'Shaugnessy's funding from the drug company for consulting & travel. Observations from other researchers about the study would have provided needed perspective about the results. Alternative treatments are not mentioned but the piece explains that metastatic triple-negative breast cancer is very difficult to treat & that many currently available treatments are not effective. The story notes that the drug is experimental & that the results reported are from a Phase 2 trial. Results from a larger Phase 3 trial of 500 women will be available in 2-3 months. Information about whether the drug has FDA approval or whether it is currently used for treating other diseases would have been helpful. The piece states that Iniparib is from a new class of drugs called PARP inhibitors. It also notes that a similar drug has shown benefits in women with BRCAI or BRCAII mutations. The piece includes information beyond that available in the press release from Sanofi-Aventis. Claim: Experimental Drug Helps Fight Aggressive Breast Cancer: Report
Solution:
This article reports on a study and accompanying editorial published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The piece details the results of a Phase 2 trial for the experimental cancer drug Iniparib which was developed to treattriple-negative breast cancer. There were appropriate caveats in the body of the story "we really don't know if this is going to end up benefitting patients""both excitement and caution are appropriate in interpreting the trial""some clear drawbacks should be noted." Metastasized triple-negative breast cancer is difficult to treat. Ifthe results of this study hold up in already ongoing largertrials, PARP inhibitors may be a new class of drugs that might be more effective than current therapies. The story deserves credit for showing restraint in covering the results of this study. However, it would have been better if the story had included morekey details on costs, harms and potential conflicts of interest.