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.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: We'll give the story the benefit of the doubt for again leaning on an independent expert who says the technology is likely prohibitively expensive. While no dollar estimate is given, we think this is good enough for now. As with the harms, the story does quantify the benefits in one way. It says, "It could help avoid up to 98% of these screening procedures, according to the study, which appears in BMJ." It also says, "The new study included 753 pregnant women who were at high risk for having a child with Down syndrome. Of these, 86 women were determined to be pregnant with a child with Down syndrome." The story does quantify potential harms in one way by noting, "There were no false-negative results with the new test." We wish the story also spoke about false positives. False positives are certainly part of the stress and harms from any screening test that need to be considered. In this case, it appears the false positives were low but not negligible. The story adequately describes the study design. The story does avoid disease monitoring, but we wish it had included some of the data from the paper about the frequency of Down syndrome and even some of the other disorders. The LA Times blog piece managed to do this in much less space. The story provides a wealth of outside experts who provide great commentary and context about the study's findings. We wish more stories about screenings had quotes like these:"In a year or two, this test may be available, but it won't replace existing technologies, it will nudge its way into our armamentarium of available methodologies," says Mark I. Evans, MD,director of Comprehensive Genetics in New York City, and an obstetrician/gynecologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, also in New York City. "The bad news is that prenatal diagnosis is not just about Down syndromeDown syndrome represents about 50% of what we find, and this new test can help with that, but it may also give women a false sense of reassurance." The story tries to do a good thing by explaining at the very end that the new test is not a diagnostic test, as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are. Rather, it's a screening test. The distinction and the significance of that could have been made more clearly, but we give the story the benefit of the doubt. The story leans on an independent expert to say that the test is "not ready for prime time.in a year or two, this test may be available." The story does not establish the test's novelty, and this is largely because it does not provide the proper context. The study itself says, "In the past 20 years maternal age has been combined with ultrasonographic examination of the fetus and biochemical measurement of various proteins or hormones in the maternal circulation to improve identification of high risk pregnancies. This combined approach of screening can now identify more than 90% of affected fetuses, but there is still a need for invasive testing in 35% of the population." This means that as many as 95% of all women would not need invasive testing to begin with, so this test is only potentially a breakthrough for a small minority of women. BMJ actually makes the novelty question easy to answer by breaking it down this way: What is already known on this topic:Non-invasive prenatal detection of fetal trisomy 21 is achievable by massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNAIts diagnostic performance and practical feasibility in the clinical setting has not been tested on a large scale. What this study adds:Among high risk pregnancies clinically indicated for invasive prenatal diagnosis, non-invasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 can be achieved with the use of multiplexed massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA at 100% sensitivity and 97.9% specificity, giving a 96.6% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value. The sequencing test could be used to rule out trisomy 21 among high risk pregnancies before proceeding to invasive diagnostic testing to reduce the number of cases requiring amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling." The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Progress Toward Blood Test for Down Syndrome
[EX A]: This thoroughly reported and carefully written story avoids giving pregnant women false hope of an easier way to detect genetic anomalies while still presenting some compelling information about a new blood test. Pregnancy can be anxiety inducing because of the sheer number of tests already required of women: frequent blood tests, ultrasounds, and amniocentesis in many cases. Add to that the barrage of stories about the way diet and environmental conditions may be affecting in utero development at any given point and one can understand why women might want a simpler solution to find out whether their child might have a genetic disorder. Overall, we think if more stories approached screening the way this story did there would be fewer people demanding the latest over-hyped test from their doctor. This is a "hope for the future" level test that may be inching its way to market. It's not available now and won't be in the immediate future and the story makes that clear.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Raising backyard chickens has been satisfying some foodies' affection for the uber-local egg and lower-fat meat in urban areas, including metro Atlanta, for about a decade. Now the Centers for Disease Control is warning of a downside to the popular trend: salmonella outbreaks traced to some backyard owners kissing and cuddling their flocks. The CDC findings drew some media attention last month, and a PolitiFact reader who heard the health alert on NPR's ""Morning Edition"" on July 16 asked us to dig deeper. We went directly to the source, the CDC, which is headquartered in Atlanta and has been investigating four recent Salmonella outbreaks that, as of July 29,had infected 218 people in 41 states. Five of them were in Georgia, 19 were in Alabama, 5 were in North Carolina, 11 were in South Carolina and 6 were in Tennessee. Fifty of the 218 people have required hospitalization for Salmonella, the major symptoms of which are usually diarrhea, fever and abdominal pain. No deaths have been reported, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund said. So how exactly do CDC officials know that some of these cases are due to backyard breeders kissing and cuddling live poultry? Dr. Megin Nichols, a veterinarian with the CDC, told PolitiFact the agency has been tracking upward trends in both the number of outbreaks and people infected in the past five years and has been working to trace their causes. ""We've been trying to interview these people to find out how they are getting sick,"" Nichols said. ""We are finding a certain proportion that are due to very close contact -- something that surprised us here at the CDC."" Salmonella is a germ that lives naturally in the intestine of chickens, ducks and many other animals. It doesn't typically make the birds sick, but they can transmit the germs in their droppings and on their feet, feathers and beaks, even when they look clean and healthy, the CDC says. The germs also can get on their cages, coops, feed, water dishes, hay, plants and the area where they live and roam. In addition, the bacteria can rest on the hands, shoes and clothes of those who work around the birds or play with them. And Nichols told us that among the people who became ill between 2008 and 2014 due to baby poultry exposure, 49 percent, or 196 out of 400, reported snuggling and holding baby birds. Another 13 percent, or about 53, reported kissing baby birds, she said. Those people, many of whom were young children, became sick through fecal oral contact, Nichols said. Those same interviews also showed that about 46 percent of backyard breeders are keeping live poultry in their homes, she said. Epidemiologic, laboratory, and traceback findings have linked the most recent four outbreaks of human Salmonella infections to contact with chicks, ducklings, and other live poultry from multiple hatcheries. Interviews have been conducted with 140 of those who were recently ill and, 117, or 84 percent, reported contact with live poultry in the week before their illness began, according to the CDC website. Additional interviews to determine whether that contact included snuggling and kissing have yet to be conducted, Nichols said. An increasing number of people around the country are choosing to keep live poultry - mostly chickens, ducks, turkeys and geese as part of a greener, healthier lifestyle. Local governments, including several in metro Atlanta, have changed their zoning ordinances in recent years to accommodate the trend, and groups of backyard poultry buffs meet regularly in the region to talk chicken. Backyard owners have told reporters at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the benefits include fresh eggs and meat, a built-in source of fertilizer for their gardens and ready-made bug-killers. Some say they give their chickens names, the freedom to roam the house and yard and cuddle and coddle them like family pets. The larger problem According to the CDC, salmonella, named for an American scientist who discovered the bacteria, is estimated to cause a million illnesses in the United States a year, with 19,000 hospitalizations and 380 deaths. Most people develop diarrhea and the other conditions within 12 to 72 hour after infection and recover without treatment in four to seven days. It has the potential to turn deadly if it spreads from the intestines to the bloodstream, and then to other body sites. Prompt treatment with antibiotics is critical, and the elderly, infants, and people with impaired immune systems are more likely to have a severe illness. In the largest recent outbreak, which occurred between March 2013 and July 2014, more than 600 people in 29 states and Puerto Rico were infected with seven outbreak strains. The outbreak was associated with one brand of chicken, which led to a company recall of more than 40,000 pounds of chicken products, according to the CDC. To prevent salmonella infections related to backyard farming, the CDC's Nichols encourages several common-sense rules. These include thorough handwashing after contact with the chicken, keeping live poultry out of the home, and avoiding snuggling, close contact with the birds' beaks or other close exposure that would allow ingestion of bacteria. She will be one of the experts featured in a webinar on the topic of practicing backyard bird biosecurity at 7p.m. Thursday. Our conclusion The CDC has issued a warning against kissing or snuggling backyard chickens. It follows four recent Salmonella outbreaks that, as of July 29, had infected 218 people in 41 states. Five of them were in Georgia. Interviews have been conducted with 140 of the ill and 117, or 84 percent, reported contact with live poultry in the week before their illness began, according to the CDC website. The CDC also has evidence from outbreaks between 2008 to 2014. In that period, they found that of the people who became infected with salmonella due to baby poultry exposure, 49 percent, or 196 out of 400 people, reported snuggling and holding baby birds. Another 13 percent, or about 53, reported kissing baby birds.. That's cause to sound the alarm." Claim: Caution: Kissing and cuddling chickens can be hazardous to your health.
[EX A]: CDC: Kissing and cuddling backyard chickens linked to salmonella infections

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The release doesn't discuss cost at all, which is somewhat surprising given that dexamethasone has been on the market for many years with various clinical applications. It's not that dexamethasone is especially expensive (it isn't though the cost isn't necessarily negligible), but that cost needs to be addressed. Readers are simply given no information about cost. The release explains that the overall pool of 140 patients was split into four groups: Group One did not receive dexamethasone and was under "deep" anesthesia; Group Two did not receive dexamethasone and was under "superficial" anesthesia; Group Three received dexamethasone before surgery and was under "deep" anesthesia; Group Four received dexamethasone before surgery and was under "superficial" anesthesia. Got all that? The release tells readers that patients in Group Four had a 15.3 percent incidence rate of POCD immediately after surgery, and that none of the Group Four patients had POCD six months after surgery. We're glad that the release provides a specific, quantified benefit. However, the release does not give readers the information they need to understand what that number means. For example, what was the POCD incidence rate for any of the other groups immediately after surgery? What was the incidence rate for other groups after six months? What does the literature have to say about how common POCD is for patients in this age range and receiving this type of surgery? Without any of that information, it is impossible for readers to determine whether a 15.3 percent incidence rate of POCD is good or bad. While the release refers in general to the risks inherent with both deep and superficial anesthesia, it does not mention any of the potential side effects associated with its recommended intervention, dexamethasone. And there is no shortage of information on dexamethasone available. According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine's Medline Plus page on dexamethasone, the drug's side effects range from vomiting to insomnia to depression. The page indicates that dexamethasone may also interact with a variety of other widely-used drugs. In addition, giving patients steroids, of whichdexamethasone is one, increases the risk of infection or worsening severity of existing infections. We don't expect a release to provide an exhaustive list of side effects, but acknowledging that there are known risks associated with the drug is important. The release explains that "The researchers evaluated 140 patients aged between 60 and 87 who underwent surgery under propofol-induced general anesthesia at the Central Institute of Hospital das Clinicas, FM-USP's teaching hospital, in most cases for removal of gallstones." The release further explains that patients were divided into four groups (as we described above, under the Benefits section), and defines what constitutes "deep" anesthesia and "superficial" anesthesia. Those are all good things. However, the release would have been much stronger if it had done three things. First, it should have made clear that all of the surgeries were non-cardiac, non-neurological surgeries. Given how common these surgeries particularly cardiac ones are for older patients, this is an important point. Second, the release should have made it more clear that the benefits observed were based on one group (i.e., Group Four) of only 32 patients. This is a preliminary finding, and that needs to be stressed. Third, while the release tells readers that the anesthetic used was propofol, it doesn't tell readers how common or widely-used this drug is as a surgical anesthetic. That would be valuable context. The release does not engage in disease mongering. The release does not explicitly note who funded the study. However, the study does not appear to have received any external funding. According to the ClinicalTrials.gov page for the study, the work was sponsored primarily by the University of Sao Paulo and Duke University (where the authors work), with additional support from the Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (or Sao Paulo Research Foundation), which is public. It's not unusual for universities to avoid mentioning funding for projects that they funded themselves. But it would have been a stronger release if it didn't leave readers wondering who paid for the work. Frankly, there's not a lot of research out there on steps to pro-actively reduce rates of cognitive dysfunction after anesthesia, and we're not aware of alternative interventions designed to do so. It's clear from the release that the relevant tools involved in this particular intervention the use of dexamethasone and avoidance of "deep" anesthesia are currently available. However, as noted above, this is a relatively small study, and we suspect that more research would be needed before this approach was considered for widespread clinical practice. Since we already dinged it for that point earlier, we'll give it a satisfactory here. It's clear from the release that this is a new (and, ergo, novel) approach addressing a well-established problem. The release uses responsible language to discuss the findings, although it could have been more clear about the preliminary nature of the work. A larger study is almost certainly called for on this intervention. We do have some concerns over the use of the acronym "POCD" to describe cognitive dysfunction following anesthesia. It appears to be a coined medical term that few clinicians use. Claim: Simple measures can reduce post-operative cognitive dysfunction in older patients
[EX A]:
This news release focuses on a recent article published in the journal PLOS ONE, reporting that the use of the corticosteroid dexamethasone and avoiding "deep" or "profound" anesthesia during surgery can reduce the incidence of post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) in older patients. However, the release does not give readers any context for understanding the reduced incidence of cognitive dysfunction after anesthesia, and does not discuss costs or potential harms associated with dexamethasone use. POCD is not uncommon. A 2014 literature survey paper found that 41.4 percent of patients age 60 or older who had major surgery (other than cardiac surgery) were exhibiting symptoms of POCD when discharged from the hospital. Three months later, 12.7 percent of those older adults were still experiencing POCD. But older adults aren't the only ones affected; more than 30 percent of adults under the age of 60 also experience POCD after major surgeries. And in addition to being fairly common, POCD can have a significant impact on a patient's health, quality of life and recovery. A major issue for older adults who have cognitive issues after surgery is their ability to care for themselves. All of these factors make POCD prevention a subject of public interest. However, as with any health-related research news, the costs, benefits and risks need to be clearly outlined. And that's missing here.