Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. 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
Answer: 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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: Costs of theMRIdian on-table adaptive radiotherapy in comparison to conventional radiotherapy are not discussed. Given that it is new and more personalized than current treatment options it's likely to be correspondingly more expensive. Certainly, more frequent MRIs would be very costly. The release provides exact information about increased survival rates in the cohorts of individuals treated with the adaptive versus the convention radiotherapy techniques. "The cohort receiving a higher dose demonstrated a near doubling of median overall survival (Kaplan-Meier estimated median overall survival of 27.8 months compared to 14.8 months)." The news release provides specific results regarding experiences of both groups with regard to toxicity from radiotherapy. We appreciate that the headline of this release starts with the words "early data" because this report deals with preliminary and retrospective research. It was not a clinical trial. Instead, results are based on retrospectively comparing treatment of two groups of patients at four institutions. Respective comparisons can't account for a host of factors that might influence results. At the end of the news release readers are told that on the basis of these promising results a clinical trial is being planned. With five-year survival rates of 1 to 14%, it would be hard to engage in disease mongering about pancreatic cancer. This research was sponsored by ViewRay, the company that developed the MRIdian system, and the release does a good job calling attention to this. However, according to the published study, at least one of the co-authors received honoraria from ViewRay Medical Systems. Since this was not included in the release we're rating this criteria Not Satisfactory. This study was all about comparing alternatives, so it scores Satisfactory on that criterion. It would have helped readers if alternatives would have been described more in laymen's terms. The news release notes that the next step is a prospective clinical trial and that tells savvy readers that this treatment strategy has a long road of testing ahead. Still, we think the release could have done a better job clarifying that this therapy is not yet ready for patients, outside of the clinical trial. A study that suggests a doubling of median survival is sure to capture the attention of patients newly diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. These patients and their families are closely aware of the glum statistics for the disease. This is a practical concern that the release should have touched on. This technology is indeed novel and unique to ViewRay, though it is becoming available in more and more cancer treatment centers. No unjustifiable language was identified in the news release. Claim: Early data shows nearly 2x prolonged median survival for inoperable pancreatic cancer
Answer:
This news release reports results of a retrospective study comparing conventional radiotherapy for inoperable pancreatic cancer versus an adaptive radiation therapy that allows clinicians to see the tumor in real time and respond to changes on a daily basis. Targeting the tumor more specifically means higher doses of radiation can be used without increasing damage to surrounding tissues. The study, funded by ViewRay, maker of the MRIdian system, is admittedly preliminary. It is to be followed up by a clinical trial. The release would have been more helpful to readers had it mentioned costs and disclosed a conflict of interest between one of the study authors and the device manufacturer. Surgery is an option only for certain less common types of pancreatic cancer. The five-year survival rates for pancreatic cancers that cannot be treated with surgery are 12% to 14% even for those diagnosed in stage I; the five-year survival rate for cancers detected at stage IV is about 1%, according to the American Cancer Society. ACS reminds readers that five-year survival rates are estimates and that "many people live longer often much longer than 5 years." In that context, a treatment that could extend the lives of the 1.5% of Americans who develop pancreatic cancer is big news.