In this task, you're given a paragraph and title from the research paper. Your task is to classify whether the given title is suitable or not for the research paper based on the given paragraph. Return "True" if title is proper according to paragraph else "False".

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Respiratory virus infection (RVI) in pediatric solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients poses a significant risk; however, the epidemiology and effects of an RVI after pediatric SOT in the era of current molecular diagnostic assays are unclear. Methods. A retrospective observational cohort of pediatric SOT recipients (January 2010 to June 2013) was assembled from 9 US pediatric transplant centers. Charts were reviewed for RVI events associated with hospitalization within 1 year after the transplant. An RVI diagnosis required respiratory symptoms and detection of a virus (ie, human rhinovirus/enterovirus, human metapneumovirus, influenza virus, parainfluenza virus, coronavirus, and/or respiratory syncytial virus). The incidence of RVI was calculated, and the association of baseline SOT factors with subsequent pulmonary complications and death was assessed. Results. Of 1096 pediatric SOT recipients (448 liver, 289 kidney, 251 heart, 66 lung, 42 intestine/multivisceral), 159 (14.5%) developed RVI associated with hospitalization within 12 months after their transplant. RVI occurred at the highest rates in intestine/ abdominal multivisceral (38%), thoracic (heart/lung) (18.6%), and liver (15.6%) transplant recipients and a lower rate in kidney (5.5%) transplant recipients. RVI was associated with younger median age at transplant (1.72 vs 7.89 years; P < .001) and among liver or kidney transplant recipients with the receipt of a deceased-donor graft compared to a living donor (P = .01). The all-cause and attributable case-fatality rates within 3 months of RVI onset were 4% and 0%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression models revealed that age was independently associated with increased risk for a pulmonary complication (odds ratio, 1.24 [95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.51]) and that receipt of an intestine/multivisceral transplant was associated with increased risk of all-cause death (odds ratio, 24.54 [95% confidence interval, 1.69-327.96]). Conclusions. In this study, hospital-associated RVI was common in the first year after pediatric SOT and associated with younger age at transplant. All-cause death after RVI was rare, and no definitive attributable death occurred. 
 Title: A Multicenter Consortium to Define the Epidemiology and Outcomes of Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With Inpatient Respiratory Virus Infection

Ex Output:
True


Ex Input:
Paragraph: To provide optimal cut-off values of anti-Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) serologic tests, we evaluated performance of ELISA IgG, ELISA IgA, IFA IgM, and IFA IgG using 138 serum samples of 49 MERS-CoV-infected patients and 219 serum samples of 219 rRT-PCR-negative MERS-CoV-exposed healthcare personnel and patients. The performance analysis was conducted for two different purposes: (1) prediction of neutralization activity in MERS-CoV-infected patients, and (2) epidemiologic surveillance of MERS-CoV infections among MERS-CoV-exposed individuals. To evaluate performance according to serum collection time, we used 'days post onset of illness (dpoi)' and 'days post exposure (dpex)' assessing neutralization activity and infection diagnosis, respectively. Performance of serologic tests improved with delayed sampling time, being maximized after a seroconversion period. In predicting neutralization activity, ELISA IgG tests showed optimal performance using sera collected after 21 dpoi at cut-off values of OD ratio 0.4 (sensitivity 100% and specificity 100%), and ELISA IgA showed optimal performance using sera collected after 14 dpoi at cut-off value of OD ratio 0.2 (sensitivity 85.2% and specificity 100%). In diagnosis of MERS-CoV infection, ELISA IgG exhibited optimal performance using sera collected after 28 dpex, at a cut-off value of OD ratio 0.2 (sensitivity 97.3% and specificity 92.9%). These new breakpoints are markedly lower than previously suggested values (ELISA IgG OD ratio 1.1, sensitivity 34.8% and specificity 100% in the present data set), and the performance data help serologic tests to be practically used in the field of MERS management. 
 Title: Suggested new breakpoints of anti-MERS-CoV antibody ELISA titers: performance analysis of serologic tests

Ex Output:
True


Ex Input:
Paragraph: Introduction: A novel H1N1 vaccine was manufactured in response to the pandemic in 2009. This study describes the willingness to be vaccinated for H1N1 among healthcare workers (HCWs) in primary healthcare clinics with and without chronic medical conditions, their reasons for refusing vaccination and whether they sought additional information to make an informed decision for the vaccination. Materials and methods: An anonymous survey was conducted in November 2009 among all medical, nursing, allied health and operations HCWs in nine primary care clinics in Singapore. Participants were asked if they had any chronic medical conditions associated with influenza-related complications (example: asthma, stroke, heart disease, cancer, diabetes mellitus, renal disease), their perception towards vaccination for H1N1 and against seasonal influenza within the preceding 2 years. Results: The initial response rate was 80%, of which 711 (54.7%) of the completed surveys were analysed. Among the 711 respondents, 16.6% reported having at least 1 chronic disease. Asthma (10.8%), hypertension (10.4%) and dyslipidaemia (9.8%) were the main chronic conditions. Only 39.4% of respondents were willing to be vaccinated against H1N1. Males were 2.07 (95% CI 1.19-3.62) times more likely than females to receive the H1N1 vaccination; the 45-54 and 55+ years old were 2.12 (95% CI 1.06-4.24) and 2.44 (95% CI 1.13-5.27) times more willing than those below 25 years old; and those who considered accepting the seasonal influenza vaccine were 7.0 times more likely than those who did not (95%CI 4.48-10.92).The 2 principal barriers were "fear of side effects" and "unsure of vaccine's effectiveness". Although 78% attended some H1N1-related talks, only 7% of all HCWs felt that they had sufficient information. Most wanted more information about the vaccine's safety profile and contraindications. Conclusion: Fewer than 40% of HCWs expressed willingness to receive the H1N1 vaccination, lower than past rates of influenza vaccine. HCWs in primary care clinics who had a chronic condition did not perceive themselves to be at higher risk of developing H1N1-related complications and were not more willing than the rest of the HCWs to accept H1N1 vaccination. Vaccine's side effects and effectiveness were the main concerns. Uptake of H1N1 vaccine may improve with targeted health information covering the vaccine's safety profile. 
 Title: Healthcare workers and H1N1 vaccination: Does having a chronic disease make a difference?

Ex Output:

False