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 Input:
Paragraph: The story focused on costs, including information about the relative cost comparison between what are called "open" surgeries and those done laparoscopically (with a thin flexible tube.) The release summarized how minimally invasive techniques reduced the length of hospital stay and complication rates for patients. "Researchers also found that, on average, the minimally invasive approach reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days, and open operations were more than $9,000 more expensive than minimally invasive procedures. The researchers also found that laparoscopic procedures were better for patients in terms of fewer complications. Laparoscopic anti-reflux operations were less likely to result in postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death." We rate this, but just barely, for citing cost differences between the two types of surgery and the average reduction in the number of days a patient must remain hospitalized. We do wish the release had delved more into the specifics of reduced complications. How common were the surgical complications in each surgical method? The release names complications associated with both types of surgery for GERD, while stating that patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures encountered fewer of them: "postoperative blood clots, wound complications, surgical site infection, esophageal perforation (which can be life threatening), bleeding, cardiac failure, and death." The news release gave details about how the study examined records of about 75,000 patients from 1,000 hospitals to compare outcomes in the records for open vs. the minimally invasive laparoscopic surgeries. That's all to the good. However, the news release didn't mention any of the study's limitations. The key one is that this is a retrospective, observational review of records that isn't capable of supporting cause and effect statements such as the minimally invasive approach "reduced length of hospital stay by approximately two days." Nor should this kind of evidence be used as the basis for statements such as laparoscopic procedures "were better for patients" and "should be the standard of care." Patients receiving open vs. laparascopic procedures could differ in unknown ways, which is why the superiority of one approach over the other should ideally be established by a prospective, randomized controlled trial. There were other limitations outlined in the journal article that were not mentioned in the release. Because the NIS database doesn't link to hospital records, researchers weren't able to track and measure outcomes "including complications, readmission, and mortality, occurring after the initial hospital discharge." The researchers were also unable to determine which open surgeries were "re-dos" of previous surgeries. The potential for errors in coding which procedures were used was also cited as a possible limitation. There was no disease mongering. The release also provided useful context on the prevalence of GERD and further specified that smaller group of patients, from the many heartburn suffers, might be candidates for the surgery. Well done. The release does not list any funding source for the research and the published study notes that authors had "nothing to disclose." We'll rate this not applicable since this is an examination of existing data, and there may have been no additional outside funding. The news release does a good job here. It compares different surgical methods and it also names alternatives for treating GERD such as medications and changes in the diet. It also states which group of patients the surgery is aimed at: "Anti-reflux surgery should be considered in patients who do not achieve complete control of their symptoms [regurgitation or cough] with medications; who do not want to take medications for the rest of their lives; or who experience complications of medical therapy." It's clear from the release that both methods of surgery have been widely available nationally and the outcomes of 75,000 surgeries were tracked by the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. The release also notes that "urban academic or teaching hospitals" perform laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery more often than "open" procedures, 54.4 percent versus 45.6 percent. And it recommends that anti-reflux surgery should be performed laparoscopically in specialized centers. The news release was not about a novel procedure and made no claim of novelty. However, this isn't the first study to examine laparoscopic vs. open surgery. For example, the British Journal of Surgery published results of a randomized trial of the two methods and the Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology published research on long-term outcomes following laparoscopic and open procedures for GERD. We did not observe any unjustifiable language. Claim: Laparoscopic anti-reflux operation for GERD linked to fewer postoperative complications

Ex Output:
A new study by the American College of Surgeons, a professional organization, compared records for 75,000 patients who underwent surgery for GERD, or gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease. The study looked at two different surgical procedures and found the less invasive one seemed equally effective, but kept patients in the hospital a shorter time with fewer complications. The news release did a good job of discussing surgical alternatives and costs, which were estimated to be $9,000 lower for the less invasive laparoscopic procedure. The release would have been better had it spelled out some of the study limitations, the key one being that a retrospective, observational review of hospital records as this study was isn't capable of supporting the cause and effect statements sprinkled throughout the release. Millions of Americans complain of occasional heartburn, sometimes called a burning sensation in the throat from food coming back up from the stomach. But some estimates are that about 20 percent of US adults fit the definition of GERD, which means they suffer symptoms at least every week. If patients consider a surgical fix, this study shows that a less-invasive procedure could reduce their complications and shorten their hospital stay. It's hard to pin down stats on GERD prevalence. A 2014 review of 16 epidemiological studies of GERD prevalence published in the journal Gut suggest GERD prevalence ranges from "18.1%-27.8% in North America, 8.8%-25.9% in Europe, 2.5%-7.8% in East Asia, 8.7%-33.1% in the Middle East, 11.6% in Australia and 23.0% in South America."

Ex Input:
Paragraph: We'll give this story a Satisfactory rating in this category since it does mention the $1,000 cost of a colonoscopy and that one of the two at-home screening tests costs about $25. But readers would benefit more by knowing the average costs of the two alternatives, rather than just the cost of one. This story focuses on theavailable methods of colorectal screening, comparing them based on available data, and points out that the two at-home screening kits are comparably effective to the two invasive procedures: sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. One of the at-home tests the FIT, or fecal immunochemical test when used, is estimated to prevent 20-23 deaths per thousand people screened, while estimates among those using colonoscopy suggest 22-24 deaths are prevented per thousand people screened. The story is clear in saying that there has been no head-to-head comparative study pitting the techniques against each other. The story gets a Satisfactory rating here since it does mention that with colonoscopy, there's "a small but real risk of harm, such as a perforation" from the screening test. But, as with all screening methods, there is the possibility of false positives or false negatives with the at-home tests which could produce either false confidence or needless worry, not insignificant issues. We would have liked the story even better had it mentioned these factors. The story is quite open with the fact that comparative data assessing the various screening methods against each other are not available, but it strengthens its offerings by citing recommendations from both the US Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive HealthCare. The recommendations of these independent groups are based on a rigorous evaluation of the highest-quality evidence available. Colon cancer is the second-leading form of cancer-related death in the country; the story does not disease monger. The story quotes three independent sources for information and the recommendations of agencies from two different governments. There is no suggestion that in a story offering a selection of screening techniques, with no one preferred above another, that there is any issue with conflicts of interest. Since this story is totally about the available alternatives for colorectal cancer screening, it easily gets a Satisfactory rating. Both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy have been available for years and the at-home screening tests mentioned in the story are said to be available through a patient's doctor's office. These details establish the methods' availability. It also quotes one source asrecommending againstthe use of over-the-counter home screening tests for this disease. The story notes that what's novel here is that the U.S. Preventive Task Force recently finalized their guidelines on colon cancer screening. There is no indication that this story relied on a news release. Claim: You Could Skip Your Colonoscopy If You're Willing To Collect Your Poop

Ex Output:
This story points out that, based on available data, two at-home screening tests appear to be equally effective compared to the more traditional, and more invasive, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. We have only minor quibbles with the storyoverall, it provided an excellent assessment of the at-home test options, particularly the fecal immunochemical test. However, for any story about screening methods, particularly blood tests, we think it's important to include the risks of false-positive and false-negative results, which carry harm. The story didn't go there. Given that the public has reservations about aspects of the invasive screening methods, information suggesting that they might be adequately replaced by non-invasive approaches is important to the public's health. All too often, colonoscopy is promoted as the "gold standard"and no mention is made of effective alternatives. This news storydoes a good job explaining options, and also explores the reasons why so many Americans think that screening with colonoscopy is the best way to be screened for colon cancer and why that attitude is not supported by the evidence and may (in rare cases) be much worse than non-invasive screening methods.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: The Portland Press Herald reports the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 1,310 Lyme disease cases through Dec. 27. That's a 29 percent from 1,852 reported cases in 2017. Lyme disease is spread by ticks. Maine Medical Center Research Institute research associate Susan Elias says ticks are easily affected by changes in weather. Experts say hot, dry weather during the summer may have stressed tick populations. Researchers add that snow and colder weather in November probably deterred tick activity. According to biologist Chuck Lubelczyk, researchers are finding "much lower" numbers of ticks in field surveys. Lyme can cause flu-like conditions, neurological problems, joint paint and other symptoms. ___ Information from: Portland Press Herald, http://www.pressherald.com Claim: Officials: Maine sees decrease in Lyme disease cases.

Ex Output:
Maine health officials say Lyme disease cases in the state dropped in 2018.