TASK 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.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: "The story had a sidebar explaining the cost of Bod Pod testing in Puget Sound locations ranges from $25 50. The story indicated one might benefit from the information generated by BOD POD measurement by helping set realistic weight loss goals. It did not actually provide the reader with any information about whether evidence exists demonstrating that it is of benefit for weight loss or improvement in adiposity-related risks. The story indicated that obtaining body composition information could be anxiety or guilt provoking. Although the story stated that 'Data suggest the BOD POD is accurate', it didn't actually indicate what sort of evidence exists documenting this. While theremay beevidence that the BOD POD is ""accurate"" the story did not state whether the evidence is solid or controversial. Most importantly, the story did not address the question as to whether there is any quality evidence that knowing your body fat percentage is truly helpful in improving your health. There also wasn't any evidence presented about how effective it is to measure body fat percentage prior to engaging in a weight loss program in terms of whether it helps people lose weight. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. In fact, it concluded that having the test is ""not a good idea if the number will be just one more thing to obsess over or feel guilty about."" Both professionals interviewed were from the private commercial sector one from a center that uses the Bod Pod (hardly an independent voice on the topic) and one who is a book author. The story would have been enhanced with the inclusion of insight from a clear expert in the field of body composition assessment. The story did a very nice job of running through the various techniques for measuring body composition and even included a link to an online calculator of body mass index (BMI). The story explained that body composition measurement with the BOD POD is hard to find because there are few locations with the apparatus. The story accurately portrayed the BOD POD as a piece of equipment that had been around for a while. We can't be sure if the story relied largely or solely on a news release." Claim: What are you made of? The BOD POD knows all

SOLUTION: This story did a fine job of explaining the various ways body composition can be measured and what the measurement means and how it might be used. But a major shortcoming of the story was that it did not do a good job of providing a critical appraisal of the evidence behind the BOD POD device. Do we really know that it is worthwhile to measure our body fat percentage? At what cost? If it is so beneficial, why doesn't my health care provider have a BOD POD in the office? What do clinicalexperts in body composition measurement say about the evidence that the BOD POD is a more useful tool than the body mass index? All unanswered, but important, questions for this story to address. This may be a case where our star ratings are deceptively high.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The Nobel Assembly, which awarded the prize of 8 million Swedish crowns ($1.1 million) at Sweden's Karolinska Institute on Monday, said the discovery solved a problem that had occupied philosophers and scientists for centuries: "How does the brain create a map of the space surrounding us and how can we navigate our way through a complex environment?" Ole Kiehn, a Nobel committee member and professor in Karolinska's neuroscience department, said the three scientists had found "an inner GPS that makes it possible to know where we are and find our way". O'Keefe, now director at the center in neural circuits and behavior at University College London (UCL), discovered the first element of the positioning system in 1971 when he found that a type of nerve cell in a brain region called the hippocampus was always activated when a rat was in a certain place in a room. Seeing that other nerve cells were activated when the rat was in other positions, O'Keefe concluded that these "place cells" formed a map of the room. Uta Frith, a UCL professor of cognitive development said O'Keefe had shown "it is possible to literally map the mind". "He has done much more than discovering neuronal mechanisms in the brain: he has discovered cognitive mechanisms that explain how human beings and other animals navigate," she said. "This beautiful work is heralding a new age of exploration of brain and mind." In 1996, Edvard Moser and May-Britt Moser, who are married and now based in scientific institutes in the Norwegian town of Trondheim, worked with O'Keefe to learn how to record the activity of cells in the hippocampus. Nearly a decade later, the Moser team discovered cells, in the entorhinal cortex region in brains of rats, which function as a navigation system. These so-called "grid cells", they discovered, are constantly working to create a map of the outside world and are responsible for animals' knowing where they are, where they have been, and where they are going. Bill Harris, head of physiology, development and neuroscience at Britain's University of Cambridge, said the scientists' work "has not only revolutionized our understanding of this amazing puzzle (the brain), but has also opened the door into problems of place memory and how we learn and remember routes of navigation, and what sleep and dreams may be doing for memory and performance." While the findings help explain how the brain works, they have no immediate implications for new medicines or other therapies, since they do not set out a mechanism of action. But knowledge about the brain's positioning system can also help understanding of what causes loss of spatial awareness in stroke patients or those with devastating brain diseases like dementia, of which Alzheimer's is the most common form and which affects 44 million people worldwide. O'Keefe told reporters in London he was very surprised to get the Nobel Prize, particularly after what he described as a "checkered youth" jumping from studying classics at school, then aeronautics at college before getting into philosophy and psychology. "I'm still in a state of shock," he said. May-Britt Moser danced and drank champagne with her colleagues in Trondheim after she was told of the award. "This is so great, this is crazy. I am just jumping, screaming," Moser told Reuters. "I am so proud of all the support that we have had. People have believed in us, in what we have been doing and now this is the reward." Norwegian TV showed her co-workers singing "Happy Nobel to you" to the tune of "Happy Birthday". Her husband did not immediately learn that he had won the Nobel Prize as he was on a plane bound to Munich. Someone was waiting for him at Munich airport with flowers and gave him the news, he told the Norwegian news agency NTB. The Mosers join a small club of married couples to win a Nobel Prize that includes Pierre Curie and Marie Curie. John Stein, an emeritus professor of physiology at Oxford said that, as with so many Nobel Prize winners, the scientists' discovery was at first ridiculed and dismissed, only later to get the recognition it warrants "This is great news and well deserved," Stein said. "I remember how great was the scoffing in the early 1970s when John first described 'place cells'. 'Bound to be an artefact' and 'he clearly underestimates rats' sense of smell' were typical reactions. Now, like so many ideas that were at first highly controversial, people say: 'Well that's obvious'!" Medicine is the first of the Nobel Prizes awarded each year. Prizes for achievements in science, literature and peace were first awarded in 1901 in accordance with the will of dynamite inventor and businessman Alfred Nobel. (1 US dollar = 7.2230 Swedish crown) Claim: Nobel Prize for medicine goes to discoverers of brain's 'inner GPS'.

SOLUTION: British-American John O'Keefe and Norwegians May-Britt and Edvard Moser won the 2014 Nobel Prize for medicine for discovering the brain's navigation system and giving clues as to how strokes and Alzheimer's disrupt it.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: "This issueis alluded to obliquely in the quote that ends the article,whichsuggests thatpalliative caremay help address ""critical concerns regarding the use of health care services at the end of life."" This is notspecific enough to satisfy the criterion. This story adequately quantifies the survival benefit and at least mentions the improvements in quality of life and depression scores. It also provides some reasonable explanations as to why palliative care may be beneficial when administered early. Although we wish it had been more precise in its characterization of the depression and quality of life benefits (how big was the improvement? on which specific symptoms? ), we feel there's enoughhere for a satisfactory. As with the competing coverage, we'll rule this one not applicable since the harms of palliative care are thought to be minimal. An excellent overview of the study's methods and outcomes. And we were particularly impressed that the WSJ delved into limitations of the research, which few other outlets attempted to tackle in any detail. This is important, in our view, because even the most well conducted studies have limitations which may cause them to produceincomplete or ""wrong"" answers to important research questions. In this case,as the WSJ points out, the study was conducted atone of the top institutions in the country under conditions which may not be repeatable elsewhere. In addition, the patients receiving palliativetreatment also received more general attention from caregivers, which canhave a beneficial effect. It may be thatmore attention in general rather than the specific palliativesupport offered in thestudy is the key to making patients feel better and live longer with advanced cancer. No disease-mongering of cancerhere. Although it didn't include the breadth of perspectives included in some of the other stories about this study,this storydid include an interview with an expert not affiliated with the studyenough fora satisfactory. Since this source is the past president of American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine a professional group that obviously supports increased awareness and use of palliative carewe wish it had also included a comment from someone without these industry ties. As noted in the competing reviews, the point of the study was to compare early palliative care with existing standard cancer treatment. Wewish, however,that the story had spent more time discussing what standardoncology care (the current ""existingalternative"") entails. As other stories covering the study pointed out,access to palliative care is limited by complicated reimbursement andlack ofskilled providers in some areas. TheWSJ didn't mentionthesebarriers. This story doesn't do a good enough job explaining what's newsworthy about the research. Palliative care is widely viewed as synonymous with hospice care provided in the last days of life. But this study suggests that it can be initiated early after diagnosis to improve outcomes something that hasn't been demonstrated previously in a rigorously conducted trial. This important distinction isn't explicitly discussed. Since the story includes an interview with an expert not affiliated with the study, we can be sure that it didn't rely solely on a news release." Claim: Study: Advanced Cancer Patients Receiving Early Palliative Care Lived Longer

SOLUTION:
Thispost from the Wall Street Journal Health Blog got it right on the big picture but missed some smaller points that might have been addressed in a longer piece. Kudos to the WSJ for doing the best job of reporting on the limitations of this study. A bit more detail on costs andavailability would have rounded out the picture for readers. Why is it important to discuss the limitations of a studyeven a very good study? Becauseexperience has shown ustime and again thatany single study can be flawed inways that may not befully appreciated at the time of publication. It is the weight of the accumulated evidence not the findings of any one study whichis important to consider when makingdecisions about health care.