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: "Since this device is experimental, we can accept the fact that the story didn’t put a specific price tag on the technology. The story did note that cost might limit initial use of the device. The story tells us the percentage of asthma patients who were correctly diagnosed by the electronic nose, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, and spirometry. It provided this data in absolute terms and didn’t muddy the waters with relative comparisons of the three techniques. Although the study data by itself might suggest that the new device is superior to the other methods, the comments from the expert sources put the results in the appropriate context. They make it clear that we can’t tell yet whether this technology represents a better option than existing techniques. Although there appears to be little risk of harm from the new testing procedure itself, the story makes no mention of the downside that can accompany a faulty diagnosis–whether a false positive or negative. False positive tests (diagnosing asthma when the patient has another disease) and false negatives (failing to diagnose asthma) can have significant consequences. A brief comment on the potential harms associated with a faulty test would have been helpful. The story did a good job of describing what happened in the study being discussed. It notes that the ""electronic nose"" device was pitted against other diagnostic techniques to compare their accuracy for confirming physician-diagnosed asthma. Importantly, independent sources emphasized that this was a small study looking at patients with one particular type of asthma. They noted that much more research would be needed to prove that the device is effective in a broad range of patients. No disease-mongering in this story. The story cites two independent sources and identifies their affiliations. The story discusses current methods for diagnosing asthma including the physical exam, spirometry, and nitric oxide tests. Although the story never explicitly states that the device being discussed is experimental, comments from the experts make it pretty clear that the technology is still in development. The story explained in reasonable detail how the device differs from traditional diagnostic methods. The story could have done a bit more to explain that ""electronic nose"" technology has been in development for quite some time and is already in use in other fields (i.e. explosives detection). However, the story’s description of the device was pretty restrained and it didn’t try to hype the technology as ""new."" It’s clear that this story wasn’t based exclusively on a news release." Claim: ‘Electronic Nose’ Sniffs Out Asthma
A:
The new test looks for volatile organic compounds that are presumably uniquely exhaled by people with asthma. When used in combination with a somewhat standard test, the new process may provide somewhat greater ability to diagnose asthma. The story rightly notes the study was conducted in a small number of subjects and is far from definitive. Would that more stories could resist the temptation to gush about new medical gadgets before their benefits are proven. Asthma is a relatively common disease that appears to be increasing in its frequency. In its classic form, asthma is relatively easy to diagnose. However many patients present with atypical symptoms and require more extensive testing, including provocative testing with methacholine, for an accurate diagnosis. An easy-to-use, non-invasive and definitive test would be an advantage for many patients .