TASK DEFINITION: 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".
PROBLEM: Paragraph: Background-Patients with the 2019 coronavirus disease have different degrees of psychological pain, such as anxiety and depression, which may related to their prognosis. Psychological intervention can be conducted in different ways to improve psychological pain and improve the treatment effect. Objective-The present study aimed to investigate and analyze the psychological status of patients with COVID-19 during the course of illness, and to evaluate the effect and influencing factors of psychological crisis intervention, so as to explore the effective mode of clinical psychological intervention in acute patients under isolation environment. Methods-A total of 143 persons participated in the study, including 26 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in the isolation ward (COVID-19 group), 87 patients with general pneumonia in the observation ward (General Pneumonia group) and 30 healthy volunteers (Normal group). All the patients in the ward received comprehensive psychological intervention, including telephone psychological counseling (active and passive), self-adjustment of written materials and one-to-one psychological crisis intervention. Hamilton depression scale (HAMD) and Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA) were used to evaluate the mental health status of all patients on the day of admission and 1 week after treatment. Results-The scores of HAMA and HAMD of all patients (including isolation ward and observation ward) were significantly higher than the healthy volunteers at the time of admission. The total score of HAMA and HAMD in CVOID-19 group were both higher than that General Pneumonia group. After 1 week`s hospitalization with comprehensive psychological intervention, the scores of HAMA and HAMD in CVOID-19 group were significantly decreased. Conclusion-Patients those who diagnosed with COVID-19 in the isolation ward and/or general pneumonia in observation ward have different degrees of anxiety, depression and sleep problems. While receiving antiviral treatment, patients also need psychological intervention. Comprehensive psychological intervention model has been proved to be effective. 
 Title: Analysis of psychological state and clinical psychological intervention model of patients with COVID-19 Running Title: Psychological state and intervention model in COVID-19 patients

SOLUTION: True

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Background The aim of this study was to assess multiplex PCR analysis in detecting causative viruses in children with febrile seizures. Methods The study was a retrospective analysis comparing data from a pre-multiplex era (2009) with a period after the introduction of routine respiratory multiplex analysis (2010-2013) in children with febrile seizures. Results We included 200 children with febrile seizures (mean age: 29.5 ± 1.4.months; 104 male) in the study. In 2009, in 10 out of 49 (20 %) children, microbiology testing (bacterial/fungal) was positive compared with a rate of 74 out of 151 (49 %) children during 2010-2013 (p < 0.01). The rate of positive virological studies increased from 10 (20 %) in 2009 to 73 (48.3 %) in the period 2010-2013 (p < 0.01). Multiplex PCR analysis confirmed viral infections in 52 of 73 cases (71.2 %). Conclusion Routine multiplex PCR analysis fosters the detection of respiratory viruses in children with febrile seizure. The precise role of multiplex analysis in the J. 
 Title: Role of multiplex PCR analysis in children with febrile seizures management of these children awaits further clarifi- cation

SOLUTION: True

PROBLEM: Paragraph: hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on viral load in the upper respiratory tract of severe acute respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) patients. The authors report that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had significant virus reducing effects, and that dual treatment of both HCQ and azithromycin further enhanced virus reduction. These data have triggered speculation whether these drugs should be considered as candidates for the treatment of severe COVID-19. However, questions have been raised regarding the study's data integrity, statistical analyses, and experimental design. We therefore reanalysed the original data to interrogate the main claims of the paper. Here we apply Bayesian statistics to assess the robustness of the original paper's claims by testing four variants of the data: 1) The assumes a positive effect, compared to a model of no effect. We find that the statistical evidence is highly sensitive to these data variants. Statistical evidence for the positive effect model ranged from strong for the original data (BF +0 ~11), to moderate when including patients who deteriorated (BF +0 ~4.35), to anecdotal when excluding untested patients (BF +0 ~2), and to anecdotal negative evidence if untested patients were assumed positive (BF +0 ~0.6). To assess whether HCQ is more effective when combined with AZ, we performed the same tests, and found only anecdotal evidence for the positive effect model for the original data (BF +0 ~2.8), and moderate evidence for all other variants of the data (BF +0 ~5.6). Our analyses only explore the effects of different assumptions about excluded and untested patients. These assumptions are not adequately reported, nor are they justified in the original paper, and we find that varying them causes substantive changes to the evidential support for the main claims of the original paper. This statistical uncertainty is exacerbated by the fact that the treatments were not randomised, and subject to several confounding variables including the patients consent to treatment, different care centres, and clinical decision-making. Furthermore, while the viral load measurements were noisy, showing multiple reversals between test outcomes, there is greater certainty around other clinical outcomes such as the 4 patients who seriously deteriorated. The fact that all of these belonged to the HCQ group should be assigned greater weight when evaluating the potential clinical efficacy of HCQ. Randomised controlled trials are currently underway, and will be critical in resolving this uncertainty as to whether HCQ and AZ are effective as a treatment for COVID-19. Warning: There have been reports of people self-administering chloroquine phosphate (intended for treatment of disease in aquarium fish) , which has led to at least one death and one serious illness. We state that under no circumstances should people self-administer hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine phosphate, azithromycin, or anything similar-sounding, or indeed any other drug, unless approved by a medical doctor. The FDA has issued a specific warning: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/fda-letter-stakeholders-do-not-use-chloroquine-phosphate-intended-fis h-treatment-covid-19-humans . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . 
 Title: Reply to Gautret et al. 2020: A Bayesian reanalysis of the effects of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on viral carriage in patients with COVID-19

SOLUTION:
False