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.

Let me give you an example: 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
The answer to this example can be: 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.
Here is 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.

OK. solve this:
Paragraph: A popular (but completelycitation-free) science meme suggests that a pregnant mother's fetus can send its own stem cells to its mother to repair damaged organs. Although any memes of this nature run the gamut from "nodding acquaintance with truth" to "has never met truth and never will," this particular one is mostly accurate. While the wording of the meme is problematic for two reasons (first, the meme's text generally says 'baby', which is incorrect as that term implies a birth; second the wording implies a conscious decision on the part of the fetus to send its tissues as a heroic gesture), the science behind the claim is actually fairlysolid. The transfer and incorporation of fetal stem cells into a mother's organs is referred to as fetomaternal microchimerism. A 2016 paper in the Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology defines the phenomenon thusly: Fetal cell microchimerism is defined as the persistence of fetal cells in the mother for decades after pregnancy without any apparent rejection. Fetal microchimeric cells (fmcs) engraft the maternal bone marrow and are able to migrate through the circulation and to reach tissues. Stem cells are essentially blank slates that have ability to turn into a variety of different tissues and, as such, play a big role in the development of a fetus. The idea with fetomaternal chimerism is that those cells can be transported out of the fetal system and become fully integrated into the mother's system despite the cells' distinctly different genetics. Scientists have been aware of fetomaternal microchimerism's existence (in broad terms) for decades. A 1996 study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for example, found thatin humans, genetically distinct cells from a male fetus persisted in the mother's body as long as 27 years after birth. Later research has demonstrated that these fetal cells can be found in multiple organs in both human and laboratory mice mothers: Fetomaternal transfer probably occurs in all pregnancies and in humans the fetal cells can persist for decades. Microchimeric fetal cells are found in various maternal tissues and organs including blood, bone marrow, skin and liver. A 2015 study published in the journal Circulation Research addressed the issue of fetal stem cells actually healing maternal organs. In this study, researchers mated female mice with transgenic male mice that were tagged with a fluorescent protein that allowed the researchers to trace the flow of the fetus's stem cells from the mother's placenta into its heart while they induced cardiac injury to the mother. They found that fetal stem cells directly targeted the damaged cardiac cells and fully integrated themselves into the mother's heart. This research, the authors state: Points to the presence of precise signals sensed by cells of fetal origin that enable them to target diseased myocardium specifically and to differentiate into diverse cardiac lineages. Most notable is their differentiation into functional cardiomyocytes that are able to beat in syncytium with neighboring cardiomyocytes, thus potentially uncovering an evolutionary mechanism whereby the fetus assists in protecting the mother's heart during and after pregnancy. Claim: During pregnancy, if the mother suffers organ damage, the baby in the womb sends stem cells to repair the damaged organ.
Answer:
While this study was performed on mice, there is a wide body of research that suggests similar phenomena could occur in humans. There is still much research to be done, however, on the overall mechanisms behind this process and the totality of effects it may have on both fetus and mother.