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.

Paragraph: "The story provides the cost of the CT scan as well as angiography. However, the story should have discussed insurance coverage for the scans. The story describes the percentage of patients with blockages that were identified with either the CT scan or the angiogram. The story should have also described the probability of having blockages with a positive scan (positive predictive value). This is the more important piece of information to a consumer. Also not described in the story is whether the CT scans had any impact at all on downstream outcomes, such as heart attacks, deaths, or procedures. The story correctly describes radiation exposure as one of the harms of the heart CT. The story could have described other harms, such as theimplications offalse positive or false negativetest results. The story adequately describes the design of the current study, including a criticism from one expert that the study ""cherry-picked"" patients to include in the study in order to maximize the findings. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. However, the story could have been more clear about who the CT scans are intended for. The study in question was in those with suspected heart disease, not the assymptomatic or ""worried well"". The use of CT scans in the larger asymptomatic population is controversial. The story quotes multiple independent experts who provide valuable commentary on the implications of the new findings. The story mentions angiography as the alternative to the heart CT. The story clearly states that the CT scans are relatively new and available in many hospitals, however it is not clear how many hospitals have purchased these machines. The story adequately describes the novelty of the scans. Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information." Claim: 'Super X-rays' show promise for finding heart disease but produce high radiation dose
The concept of cardiac CT sounds like a great one: to be able to get high resolution images of thecoronary arteries in a non-invasive way. One potential use of the scans would be to identify those withoutblockages to save them from gettingthe more invasive angiography procedure. Unfortunately, cardiac CT scans are being performed on those without symptoms or suspicion of heart disease, and in the absence of evidence to support its use in this population, the harms of the test (including radiation exposure) may not be worth its benefits. According to the2006 American Heart AssociationGuidelines, "For CT angiography, the higher radiation doses suggest the need for greater forethought when using these tests, and use of these higher radiation exposure tests in asymptomatic persons for screening purposes is not currently recommended." In particular, "Use of CT angiography in asymptomatic persons as a screening test for atherosclerosis (noncalcific plaque) is not recommended". This story reports on a recent presentation of the results of a study comparing cardiac CT to angiography in high-risk individuals. The story accurately represents the availability, novelty, andcosts of the scan. The story quotes multiple independent experts who provide valuable commentary on the implications of the new findings. By not exaggerating the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease, the story avoids disease mongering. However, the story could have been more clear about who the CT scans are intended for. The study in question was in those with suspected heart disease, not the assymptomatic or "worried well". The use of CT scans in the larger asymptomatic population is controversial. The story correctly describes radiation exposure as one of the harms of the heart CT. The story could have described other harms, such as theimplications offalse positive or false negativetest results. The story adequately quantifies the benefits of Cardiac CT by describing the percentage of patients with blockages that were identified with either the CT scan or the angiogram. The story should have also described the probability of having blockages with a positive scan (positive predictive value). This is the more important piece of information to a consumer. Also not described in the story is whether the CT scans had any impact at all on downstream outcomes, such as heart attacks, deaths, or procedures.