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: Older adults who underwent a brief course of brain exercises saw improvements in reasoning skills and processing speed that could be detected as long as 10 years after the course ended, according to results from the largest study ever on cognitive training. The findings, published on Monday in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, offer welcome news in the search for ways to keep the mind sharp as 76 million baby boomers in the United States advance into old age. The federally sponsored trial of almost 3,000 older adults, called the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly study, or ACTIVE, looked at how three brain training programs - focusing on processing speed, memory and reasoning ability - affected cognitively normal adults as they aged. People in the study had an average age of 74 when they started the training, which involved 10 to 12 sessions lasting 60 to 75 minutes each. After five years, researchers found, those with the training performed better than their untrained counterparts in all three measures. Although gains in memory seen at the study's five-year mark appeared to drop off over the next five years, gains in reasoning ability and processing speed persisted 10 years after the training. "What we found was pretty astounding. Ten years after the training, there was evidence the effects were durable for the reasoning and the speed training," said George Rebok, an expert on aging and a professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who led the study. Participants in all three training groups also reported that they had an easier time with daily activities such as managing their medications, cooking meals or handling their finances than did participants who did not get the training. But standard tests of these activities showed no differences between the groups. "The speed-of-processing results are very encouraging," said study co-author Jonathan King, program director for cognitive aging in the Division of Behavioral and Social Research at the National Institute on Aging (NIA), part of the National Institutes of Health, which helped fund the research. King said the self-reported improvements in daily function were interesting, but added, "We do not yet know whether they would truly allow older people to live independently longer." However, researchers said even a small gain would be likely to ease the burden on caregivers and healthcare providers. "If we delay the onset of difficulties in daily activities even by a small amount, that can have major public health implications in terms of helping to curb healthcare costs, delaying entry into institutions and hospitals," Rebok said. The training course was designed to bolster specific cognitive abilities that begin to slip as people age. It does not aim to prevent dementia caused by underlying disease such as Alzheimer's. At the start of the study, all 2,832 participants were cognitively normal. The study included four groups: three training groups plus a control group of volunteers who came in for regular testing to see how they were faring with age. People were trained in small groups over a period of several weeks and then were tested immediately after the training and again one, two, three, five and 10 years later. About 60 percent of the volunteers who underwent training also got booster training sessions, which enhanced the initial benefits. At the end of the trial, all groups showed declines compared with their initial baseline tests in memory, reasoning and processing speed, but those who got training in reasoning and processing speed experienced less decline. Among those given training in reasoning strategies, 73.6 percent were still performing above their pre-trial baseline level, compared with 61.7 percent of those who received no training and were only benefiting from practice on the test. The effect was even greater in processing speed. Among the training group, 70.7 percent of participants were performing at or above their baseline level, compared with 48.8 percent of those in the control group. There was no difference in memory performance between the memory group and the control group after 10 years. Two of the three training programs - the memory and the reasoning strategies - were done with paper and pencil, while the processing speed training was done on a computer. The programs, developed by the researchers, were focused largely on teaching strategies to improve cognitive performance. For example, the memory training taught people how to remember word lists, sequences and main ideas, while the reasoning training focused on things like recognizing number patterns. In the processing speed training, people were asked to focus on the main object in a computer screen while also trying to quickly recognize and identify objects on the periphery of the screen. Such training can help older drivers with things like recognizing road signs while driving. A version of the speed training program developed for this trial is now commercially available through the brain fitness company Posit Science, but the researchers are working on making other types of training available as well. Rebok's team just got a grant from the National Institute on Aging to make a computerized version of the memory test, with the hope that repeated training can improve the results. The study was not designed to explain why cognitive training can have such a lasting effect. Rebok said it may be that people take the strategies they learn and practice them over time. As they age, trained individuals can rely on these strategies to compensate for their declines. Whether this training actually strengthened the brain in the way that exercising builds muscle is not clear, but the government intends to study this, too. Last week, NIA put out a request for proposals that would study whether cognitive training causes physical changes in the brain. Claim: Brain training helped older adults stay sharp for years: study.
Example Output: A brief course of brain exercises helped older adults hold on to improvements in reasoning skills and processing speed for 10 years after the course ended, according to results from the largest study ever done on cognitive training.

Example Input: Paragraph: The story does not say how much this new procedure costs or compare it with existing treatments for patients who don't respond to medication. Deep brain stimulation, the current treatment standard, can run anywhere from $30,000 to $70,000, according to various online cost estimates. There also may be additional costs incurred by those patients who have adverse effects. The story is long on description but short on numbers. Saying the treatment "has had an immense impact on patients' lives," the story devotes quite a bit of print along with video footage to show rapid functional and quality-of-life improvements experienced by patients, focusing on one women who said her tremor "has almost disappeared" since she had the procedure in June. Video showing this patient before and after treatmentincluding her attempts to write her name, trace a spiral and pour water from one cup to anotherdo a great job of conveying the improvements. This is terrific news for this woman, butwe're not told how representative her experienceis of overall outcomes. Is she a best-case scenario? Middle of the road? There are also inspiring quotes from a researcher, including a description of the "remarkable moment" patients experience when they realized the tremor has subsided. "They can write their names again, they can feed themselves, they are not embarrassed about being in public. So it really is extraordinarily helpful for people," he says. In terms of study data, the story says researchers "found that the severity of essential tremor reduced significantly" in patients who underwent the treatment as well as reported improvements in quality of life. But there are no figures. In fact, according to the study, patients experienced a 47 percent improvement in tremor scores, dropping from 18.1 points on a 32-point scale at baseline to 9.6 points three months after the procedure. That data should have been included. Also, the story should have spelled out that 56 patients received the treatment, versus 20 who experienced a fake procedure. Also worth pointing out: We don't know the meaning or clinical significance of a reduction of this magnitude in the total score. The story addresses adverse effects, and that's sufficient for a Satisfactory rating. We do wish the story had quantified the harms that were measured in the study. The fourth paragraph says the procedure "brings lasting side effects in some patients" and later the story quotes a physician who is not involved in the research as saying, "It's a pretty high incidence of side effects." But nowhere do exact numbers appear. Rather than citing data from the study, the story quotes the physician as saying that "over a third of patients actually experienced either gait disturbance or paresthesia," or numbness. This information isn't very useful because the story does not explain when these rates were measured. According to the study, three months after the procedure 36% of patients had gait disturbance and 38% had numbness. After 12 months, the numbers dropped, to 9 percent and 14 percent respectively. Also worth mentioning is that one patient was reported to have permanent diminished sensation of the dominant thumb and index figure, which was categorized as a serious adverse event. That did not appear in the story. The story clearly spells out that there isn't data on the long-term efficacy of this procedure, and that more study is needed, so we'll give this a barely passing Satisfactory. Several importantstudy limitations were not included in the story, such as the fact that the treatment did not provide significant improvement for some types of tremors, and the treatment is not appropriate for people who are unwilling or unable to undergo an MRI. We're also not told that the sham group was only followed for 3 months, while the experimental group was followed for a year. This is not usually recommended in clinical trials and both groups should be followed for the same length of time. The story cites a figure from the International Essential Tremor Foundation, an advocacy group, that an estimated 10 million people in the United States suffer from the condition. However, a 2014 analysis of existing research put the number of cases at around 7 million as of 2012, or about 2.2% of the U.S. population. While this may not qualify as disease mongering, the story could have pointed out that the exact number of cases isn't clear. Also, the story should have noted that not all people with essential tremor have symptoms severe enough to require treatment. The story only fulfills part of our criteria. It does use one independent source, a physician who was not involved in the study. It also accurately reports the trial's funding sources: InSightec, which developed the device; along with Focused Ultrasound Foundation, which is funded by device makers and philanthropic organizations; and the Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation, an Israel-U.S. government partnership that receives corporate support. However, the story falls short because it does not report the fact that nine of the study authors reported conflicts of interest, with most receiving financial compensation of some sort from device makers in the field. Lead researcher G. Rees Cosgrove, M.D. who is quoted in the story, reported receiving consulting fees from InSightec. The story states, "Doctors usually treat essential tremor with medication, but the drugs don't work well for all patients." That's true, and so we'll give this a Satisfactory rating for at least mentioning alternatives. But it should be noted that other procedural treatment options were not compared or even mentioned in the story and received only a brief mention in one of the videos. The current standard for tremor patients who don't respond to medication is deep-brain stimulation, in which a probe connected to a pacemaker is implanted in the thalamus to suppress the tremors. Gamma Knife thalamotomy, which delivers precise doses of radiation to the thalamus, is also considered to be a safe and effective therapy for patients who don't respond to medication. Also, some patients have mild symptoms that can be treated with relaxation techniques and the avoidance of triggers such as caffeine. The story states that the device was approved by the FDA in July. The story could have done readers a service by giving a sense of how many medical centers around the country are geared up to perform the procedure, or will be soon. This is indeed a new treatment option for essential tremor, though the story may leave readers with the false impression that the concept of killing off neurons in the thalamus is new. Rather, it's the use of focused ultrasound to destroy brain tissue, rather than a probe inserted in the brain, that constitutes an advance. The story does not appear to rely solely on the news release, which we also reviewed. Claim: New treatment offers some hope for an unshakable tremor
Example Output: Thisstorydescribes a recently FDA-approved device to treat essential tremor in patients who have not responded to medication. The ExAblate Neuro, made by Dallas-based InSightec, uses magnetic resonance images taken during the procedure to deliver focused ultrasound that destroys tissue in the thalamus, the part of the brain where tremors are believed to originate. Results of a randomized clinical trial on the device's safety and efficacy were published this month in the New England Journal of Medicine. The story and accompanying video (seen at right) vividlyillustrate rapid symptom improvements, highlighting a 72-year-old woman who says the procedure changed her life by allowing her to "eat like a normal person" and easily perform basic tasks such as signing her name and folding a scarf. This powerfulpatient anecdote throws the balance off: Imagine how different thestorywould seem if the video instead showed a patient who had improved, but also was affected by one of the serious adverse effects caused by the treatment. Also, the storyneededspecific numberson the measured benefits and harms, along with a discussion of costs and alternative treatment options. Note: We also reviewed the news release that was issued to journalists about this study. While not life threatening, essential tremor can be debilitating, especially affecting people in their advanced years. The ExAblate Neuro, which the FDA calls the first focused ultrasound device to treat essential tremor in patients who have not responded to medication, offers a somewhat less invasive treatment option than traditional surgical approaches. It's certainly newsworthy. But all of the facts, including long-term efficacy data, are not in. Stories that feature glowing patient anecdotes and positive physician commentary need to be balanced with plenty of data that can help patients and their families decide whether this treatment might be worth seeking out.

Example Input: Paragraph: "In Chinese tradition, a girl and a boy means good, perfect," said the mother, who requested anonymity. "There's nothing wrong with girls, but in Hong Kong and Chinese tradition all families like boys." The mother is one of hundreds of women from mainland China, Hong Kong and Australia who visit Bangkok each year for in vitro fertilization (IVF) with the option of choosing the child's gender by discarding fertilized eggs, or embryos, of the unwanted sex. The only other countries where the technique is permitted and available are the United States and South Africa - in both cases at a higher financial cost. The dozen or so clinics that offer the service in Bangkok say it gives parents the chance to "balance" the genders in their growing families, but medical authorities want the practice banned. The Medical Council of Thailand, an independent agency that supervises the country's medical system, says it could encourage embryo trafficking. Still, its efforts to stop IVF gender selection have been complicated by a number of factors. It has no powers to prevent clinics providing the service because there is no law governing its practice in Thailand. Despite years of lobbying, the issue has remained low on the list of political priorities for successive governments a point underlined by Thailand's latest political upheaval and military coup. In standard IVF practice, a woman's eggs are removed and fertilized before being returned to the womb. In gender selection IVF, only embryos of the desired gender are implanted, a practice mostly shunned amid concerns about couples making a choice on the right to life based on gender. "Sex selection for non-medical reasons is not encouraged, but neither is it prohibited in the U.S., according to the latest guidelines," the American Medical Association says on its Website. As in Thailand, South Africa currently has no legal provision governing the technique. The business is estimated to be worth about $150 million last year, according to one Hong Kong agent who organizes gender selection packages. Demand is growing about 20 percent a year, some Thai providers told Reuters, with the number of clinics rising to meet it. With parliament dissolved since last December and an army government now in power, calls for legislation remain in limbo. Thailand's Health Ministry referred questions to the Royal Thai College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the only agency in the country which gathers specialized information about IVF treatment. Prof. Clin. Wiboolphan Thitadilok, president of the college, said the agency is working on a fresh set of recommendations on IVF treatment in general. "We have worked to put this issue into law for more than 10 years" she told Reuters. "It's not an issue that politicians will pay much attention to." Thailand now has 44 IVF clinics in total, with seven new facilities opened last year and two or three applications for new clinics being submitted every month, according to the college. The Asian country has become the go-to destination for Chinese couples not willing to leave the gender of their baby to chance. They pay fees that can run close to $30,000 in some cases for packages including a cycle of treatment lasting two to three weeks. Alfred Siu Wing-fung, a Hong Kong agent selling Bangkok gender selection packages to about 200 Chinese couples a year, said as well as people from poorer rural areas his business, Eden Hospitality, had strong demand from wealthy professionals wanting certainty about their offspring. Siu estimates about 10,000 gender selection cycles were carried out in Bangkok last year, at an average cost of $15,000 per treatment. While medical equipment and drugs are imported, clinics are staffed mostly by Thai doctors and nurses trained overseas. He offers two packages: 280,000 Thai baht ($8,700) for a basic service including flights and accommodation, and 900,000 baht ($27,800) for VIP treatment, including nannies and catering. Interest is growing in Australia, where gender selection treatment is unavailable. Dr Robert Woolcott, director of Genea Ltd, the third-largest IVF company in Australia, said Genea routinely recommends that couples wishing to choose the gender of their baby visit Bangkok's Superior A.R.T. (for Assisted Reproductive Technology), a clinic it partly owns. Overall, Australians numbering "in the hundreds per year" travel to Thailand for gender selection, Woolcott told Reuters. Back in Hong Kong, the mother, now 28 with a healthy 18-month-old son, is planning for her third child. She probably won't go back to Bangkok. "I think the third one should be natural," she said. ($1=32.3500 Thai Baht) ($1=1.0639 Australian Dollars) Claim: In Thailand, baby gender selection loophole draws China, HK women to IVF clinics.
Example Output:
At 26, with a baby daughter, a Hong Kong mother and her husband wanted a second child. To make sure it would be a boy, they paid $9,000 and flew to Thailand, the last place in Asia where gender selection treatment is available and breaks no law.