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: 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 is here: 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.
Explanation: 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.

Now, solve this: Paragraph: The article does not include information about the psychological and financial costsof biopsies forwomen with a false positive diagnosis of breast cancer. Among women with a personal history of breast cancer, 1.7 %were referred forbiopsies that determined there was no secondbreast cancer while 1% of the women without breast cancer had false positive determinations. The article does point out that 18% of women with a personal history of breast cancer were called back for additional imaging or biopsies compared with 8.3% of those without breast cancer but there is no discussion of the psychological or financial costs connected with the additional imaging. By quantifying the benefits of screening mammography for women with a personal history of breast cancer in absolute numbers, the story presents this information accurately and in a useful, understandable way for women with breast cancer. The storydiscusses false positives & interval cancers & provides explanations of both of these problems associated with screening mammography. The story does not explain that the study was a retrospective study based on mammograms performed from 1996-2007 in five states at facilities affiliated with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. There is no mention in the story of the possible confounding factors such as the biological factors associated with treatment of the first cancers that were noted by the study authors. The story also fails to include information about the subgroups of women with the highest observed cancer rates for whom the study authors note that alternate screening might be considered. The headline of this story misleads the reader by stating that "Mammograms May Not Be Fool-Proof at Catching Second Cancers." No type of screening for breast cancer is fool-proof whether it is for an initial diagnosis or for a second breastcancer. Regarding the accuracy of screening mammography for an initial breast cancer diagnosis, the Komen for the Cure website states that in women age 50 and older "between six and 27 percent of breast cancers may be missed by mammography alone." Mammography is most effective in women 50 and older. Quotes from two independent sources are included in the article. Dr. William Audeh, director of the Wasserman Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center,presents possible explanations forsome of the higher false positives amongwomen with apersonal history of breast cancer. Quotes from both Dr. Audeh andDr. Robert Smith, director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society,point out that screening mammography may not have been as effective among women witha personal history of breast cancer as it wasin those without a breastcancerdiagnosis but that most of the cancers detected were stage I or ductal carcinoma in situ, a non-invasive breast cancer. The article could have noted that study authors declared no conflicts of interestandthat the study was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Satisfactory mostly because of the inclusion of the comments by Dr Audeh about MRI, which is really the only acceptable alternative to mammography for followup of breast cancer survivors, and it is still unclear how MRI and mammography should be used in concert. Not applicable. Mammography is widely available and recommendations for annual mammography screening after a breast cancer diagnosis are standard. So the story didn't need to specifically discuss the availability. Satisfactory. The novelty of mammography is not in question, and the whole point of the story was the new study about mammography's performance in breast cancer survivors vs. controls. It may have been helpful for readers to knowthat the studywas the first to examine the accuracy of screening mammography for women with a personal history of breast cancer. Thearticle does not rely solely on a news release. It includes several explanatory quotes from Dr. Diana Miglioretti, one of the co-authors of the study as well as quotes from two doctors not connected with the study. Claim: Mammograms May Not Be Fool-Proof at Catching Second Cancers
Solution:
Although the story addressed most of our criteria satisfactorily, it didn't: include information about the psychological and financial costsof biopsies forwomen with a false positive mention the possible confounding factors such as the biological factors associated with treatment of the first cancers that were noted by the study authors. Women already diagnosed with breast cancer are at risk of developing a second breast cancer. Breast cancer survivors would benefit from evidence of the accuracy of screening mammography in detecting second breast cancers. In addition, this evidence is useful in determining clinical practice guidelines. Because there arenearly twomillion breast cancer survivors, accuracy of screening affects many women. While over 40,000 women die each year of breast cancer, the majority of those diagnosed survive their disease.