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.
One example is below.
Q: 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
A: 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.
Rationale: 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.
Q: Paragraph: The story lists the costs of this screening tool and notesthe costmay not always be covered by insurance. The story also notes the cost to public health spending for additional, and sometimes unnecessary, diagnostic tools. The story provides a good review of the benefits of MRI screening for women at high risk of breast cancer and breast cancer recurrence. The story does an excellent job detailing the pros and cons of MRI screenings for breast cancers in high risk women, and for any woman who is considering this as an adjunct to,or in lieu of mammography. What is particularly noteworthy here is the discussion of the value of early screening and treatment, and whether it is finding cancer that would cause harm. This is not a concept often found instories like this. The story lists data that 5 percent to 25 percent of MRI tests (not just those for breast cancer) are wrong, causing psychological distress and unnecessary treatment. The story describes the trial design of the MRI screening study cited and provides quantitative evidence from this trial. The story also notes the false positive rates of MRI screenings, but does not list the false positive or false negative rates for the study cited. The story does not engage in disease mongering or test mongering. The story notes who might benefit from the additional screening only those women at higher risk and provides the downside to overzealous screening for breast cancerin lower-risk women. The story also notes annual incidence of breast cancer and the estimated risk of a woman developing breast cancer during her lifetime. The story again does an excellent job citing several clinicians and researchers not affiliated with the American Cancer Society or the recently published article in NEJM on the benefit of additional screening in women recently diagnosed with breast cancer. These sourcesprovide balance and sound, evidence-based advice on MRI screening for breast cancer. The story reviews various methods of screening for breast cancer and notes the follow-up procedures (i.e. biopsies and other surgeries) and the medical decisions that must be made if there is a suspicion of cancer. The story mentions that MRI screening should be performed at centers that also do breast biopsies. These centers may not be available to all women. The story also notes the cost of MRI screenings, which may not be covered by insurance, making them unavailable for some women. The story reports on evidence published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggesting women diagnosed with breast cancer should consider having their other breast screened via MRI. According to the source article, mammography and physical examination missed cancer in about 3% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. The story also reports that the American Cancer Society has recently revised screening guidelines and recommendations that women at higher risk of breast cancer and women whose breasts are difficult to read via mammograms undergo MRI screening. The story includes a great deal of independent reporting and does not appear to be driven by any news release. Claim: MRIs urged in breast cancer detection
A:
This 5-star story is an example of excellent health journalism. The story provides a thorough review of the pros and cons of MRI breast cancer screening. The reporter cites unbiased sources who provide evidence-based advice. What is particularly noteworthy in this story is the discussion of the value of early screening and treatment, and whether this screening is finding cancer that would cause harm. This is not a concept often found in stories such as this. The story notes annual incidence of breast cancer, as well as the estimated risk of a woman developing breast cancer during her lifetime, depending on whether she is at higher or lower risk of the disease. The story notes who might benefit from the additional screeningi.e. only those women at higher riskand provides the downside of overzealous screening for breast cancer in lower-risk women. The story does an excellent job detailing the pros and cons of MRI screenings for breast cancers for any woman who is considering this as an adjunct to, or in lieu of mammography. The story lists data that 5 percent to 25 percent of MRI tests (not just those for breast cancer) are wrong, causing psychological distress and unnecessary treatment. The story reviews various methods of screening for breast cancer and notes the follow-up procedures (i.e. biopsies and other surgeries) and the medical decisions that must be made if there is a suspicion of cancer. The story lists the additional cost of this screening and notes that it may not always be covered by insurance. The story also mentions the cost to public health for these expensive diagnostic tools. All in all, an excellent job by a veteran reporter at a top newspaper.