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: "There was no discussion of the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables compared to the typical American diet of largely processed/fast foods. But it's safe to assume most readers know the costs from their regular grocery shopping. The story provided information that the two groups did not differ in terms of rates for breast cancer recurrence, the main outcome of the study. The story only provided the information that the two groups did not differ in terms of rates for breast cancer recurrence, not survival. The story did mention that neither of the groups lost more weight, so such a high-fiber diet is not a guarantee for weight loss. The story does not mention any harms of a diet high in fiber and low in fat. Possible ""side effects"" of such a diet might include bloating, gas, and diarrhea or loose stools. The story discusses the study design and presents the absolute number of women who had a breast cancer recurrence in each group. The story does not mention that the study participants self-reported their dietary habits. The story did not engage in disease mongering. The story only quotes the author of an editorial on the newly published data. Her comment needs further explanation, so more information from her or from other researchers or clinicians not affliated with the study would have been useful, especially regarding a discussion of other benefits associated with a high-fiber low-fat diet focusd largely on plant-based foods. The story failed to mention other breast cancer recurrence strategies such as hormone and biological medications, etc. Other studies have suggested that weight management via diet and exercise may play a role in the prevention of certain types of breast cancer in post-menopausal women (e.g hormone receptor negative). The story did mention prevention of excessive weight gain via diet and exercise would be the ""next frontier in cancer prevention research"". The story does not specifically mention the availability of a fresh fruits and vegetables for all populations, but the focus of the story is on the lack of evidence that a diet concentrated on these foods has any benefit for breast cancer recurrence. No preventative behavioral modification related to diet is advocated. The story was also suffienciently clear about what the ""treatment"" was (number of servings of vegetables and fruits, etc) such that if a person wanted to ""treat"" themselves in this manner they could replicate the intervention. The story mentions that this is a newly published study showing no evidence that a diet high in fruits and vegetables is not directly related to a decreased risk of breast cancer recurrence. Increasing fruits/vegetables in the diet is not a novel concept. The story does not appear to be taken directly from a press release and there is independent reporting." Claim: Intensive Vegetable-Fruit Diet Shows No Effect on Breast Cancer Return
Solution:
This was a brief story (only 242 words) that accurately described the main findings of an important randomized trial. Specifically, this story discussed a newly published study showing no evidence that a diet high in fruits and vegetables is related to a decreased risk of breast cancer recurrence. These findings are important for breast cancer survivors to know about, but the story did not include adequate context. Further developing the story to include known treatments to prevent recurrence, both medical and behavioral, would have strengthened the story considerably. Including another perspective from an expert in this field would have been helpful in interpeting the results and in addressing this key issue. Other research suggests that weight management via diet and exercise may play a role in the prevention of certain types of breast cancer in post-menopausal women (e.g. hormone receptor negative). The story did mention prevention of excessive weight gain via diet and exercise would be the "next frontier in cancer prevention research". In a similarly designed study recently published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, there was a small (about 6-pound) weight loss difference in the group of women assigned to a high-fiber, low-fat diet, and fewer breast cancer recurrences in this group (though the difference was not statistically significant). The story failed to mention other evidence-based breast cancer recurrence strategies currently available such as hormone and biological medications, etc. These medications can reduce the risk of recurrence by about 50% or more. The story does not mention any potential "side effects" of such a high fiber diet, which might include bloating, gas, and diarrhea or loose stools. While the reporter cites Dr. Gapstur, an editorial writer on the newly published data, her comment needs further explanation. More information from her and from other researchers or clinicians not affliated with the study would have been useful, especially regarding a discussion of non-cancer related benefits associated with a high-fiber, low-fat diet focused largely on plant-based foods. (Publisher note and correction on July 26, 2007: We should have noted that this was not an enterprise story by the Washington Post. The Post slashed an original 733-word story by the Associated Press to come up with this almost 500-word-shorter version.)