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 is below.
Q: 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
A: 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.
Rationale: 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.
Q: Paragraph: As the drug is still under development, there was no discussion of costs. This is a humanized monoclonal antibody and the story might have mentioned some of the drugs currently on the market to treat other disorders such as bevacizumab (Avastin) or adalimub (Humira). This could have led to some discussion about costs because these are not inexpensive medications. The story merely mentions that this drug had ‘shown promise’ and that the studies reported are ‘encouraging’ because they indicate that people can tolerate the drug for 2- 4 years without safety concerns. Promise of what? What does the drug do? Although the story mentions amyloid accumulation, it failed to explain that though amyloid accumulation is seen in Alzheimer’s disease, it isn’t clear whether it causes symptoms or is secondary to the disease process. The story would have added valuable context by at least mentioning the results of the placebo-controlled study from which the patients in this extension study were drawn. http://newsroom.elan.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=88326&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1166655 That study found that the drug had no effect on symptoms in the study group overall, although specific subgroups seemed to benefit in an after-the-fact analysis that was not part of the original study design. The story indicated that some patients taking the higher does of the drug experienced headache, memory loss, hallucinations, reduced coordination or other symptoms. From the information in the story, it appeared that 8% (21/262) of patients participating in a second study using the lower dose of the medication had some anomalies on MRI scan but no reported symptoms. At the end of this story, it was reported that the results had only been presented at a meeting and therefore considered only as preliminary until they were reviewed. In addition, the story indicated that the study reported on was an open-label trial. But it doesn’t explain what open-label means – hardly a consumer-friendly term. Wanna do a poll on how many readers know what it means? (In an open-label trial, both the clinician and patient know what it is that they are taking; the potential impact of that on results should be obvious.) Nonethless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt, largely on the back of one of the expert sources being quoted:  “it is too early to tell from the data from this small Phase 2 safety trial.” (Although, again, do we expect that most readers know what a Phase 2 trial really means?). The story did not engage in overt disease-mongering. The story included a quote from Dr. Ian Murray who did not appear to have a role in the studies reported on as well as comments from Dr. Salloway, lead author of the study. But we’re going to rule it unsatisfactory because the story should have noted that Dr. Salloway, according to previous disclosures available online, has received research funding and has consulting relationships with numerous drug companies, including Pfizer, which makes bapineuzumab. The story failed to explain how patients taking bapineuzumab compared with those who did not take the drug. Without this information, it is impossible to evaluate the value this medication may have to patients. The story also should have put the findings seen with bapineuzumab in context with those of the other approved drugs (Aricept, etc) that have limited efficacy or perhaps mentioned the other drugs that are in testing. The subject of the story is the drug bapineuzumab, which was reported as not yet available to consumers. It would have been useful to include a link to Clinicaltrials.gov so that readers who might be interested could learn about the other trials being conducted. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Bapineuzumab This story did not overstate the novelty of the drug reported on. But the story also could have mentioned that there are several similar drugs undergoing preliminary testing. This story did not rely solely on a news release. Claim: Experimental Drug Might Help Fight Alzheimer’s After All
A:
This story reports on a drug in development for people with Alzheimer’s disease. While providing a lot of detailed information about the molecule under study and how the drug is better tolerated at lower doses, this story failed to provide any insight as to the benefit one might hope to obtain from taking this medication. Indicating that the drug might show promise gets the readers hopes up without any framework for what it is they might expect. The graying of the population means that the concern about Alzheimer’s disease looms large –  for the elderly, people who care for elders, and those paying the bills.