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".

[Q]: Paragraph: Editor: M. Leeflang Multiplex PCR Point-of-care test Respiratory virus infection a b s t r a c t Objectives: To provide a summary of evidence for the diagnostic accuracies of three multiplex PCR systems (mPCRs)dBioFire FilmArray RP (FilmArray), Nanosphere Verigene RVþ test (Verigene RVþ) and Hologic Gen-Probe Prodesse assaysdon the detection of viral respiratory infections. Methods: A comprehensive search up to 1 July 2017 was conducted on Medline and Embase for studies that utilized FilmArray, Verigene RVþ and Prodesse for diagnosis of viral respiratory infections. A summary of diagnostic accuracies for the following five viruses were calculated: influenza A virus (FluA), influenza B virus, respiratory syncytial virus, human metapneumovirus and adenovirus. Hierarchical summary receiver operating curves were used for estimating the viral detection performance per assay. Results: Twenty studies of 5510 patient samples were eligible for analysis. Multiplex PCRs demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) equal to or more than 0.98 for all the above viruses except for adenovirus (AUROC 0.89). FilmArray, Verigene RVþ and ProFluþ (the only Prodesse assay with enough data) demonstrated a summary sensitivity for FluA of 0.911 (95% confidence interval, 0.848e0.949), 0.949 (95% confidence interval, 0.882e0.979) and 0.954 (95% confidence interval, 0.871e0.985), respectively. The three mPCRs were comparable in terms of detection of FluA. Conclusions: Point estimates calculated from eligible studies showed that the three mPCRs (FilmArray, Verigene RVþ and ProFluþ) are highly accurate and may provide important diagnostic information for early identification of respiratory virus infections. In patients with low pretest probability for FluA, these three mPCRs can predict a low possibility of infection and may justify withholding empirical antiviral treatments. H.-S. Huang, Clin Microbiol Infect 2018;24:1055 
 Title: Systematic review Multiplex PCR system for the rapid diagnosis of respiratory virus infection: systematic review and meta-analysis
[A]: False


[Q]: Paragraph: Purpose: Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference. Test-negative study designs are often utilized to calculate influenza vaccine effectiveness. The virus interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction. This study aimed to investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status. Furthermore, individual respiratory viruses and their association with influenza vaccination were examined. Results: We compared vaccination status of 2880 people with non-influenza respiratory viruses to 3240 people with pan-negative results. Comparing vaccinated to non-vaccinated patients, the adjusted odds ratio for non-flu viruses was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86, 1.09; p = 0.60). Additionally, the vaccination status of 3349 cases of influenza were compared to three different control groups: all controls (N = 6120), non-influenza positive controls (N = 2880), and pan-negative controls (N = 3240). The adjusted ORs for the comparisons among the three control groups did not vary much (range: 0.46-0.51). Conclusions: Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 
 Title: Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season
[A]: False


[Q]: Paragraph: Interferon protects mice from vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) infection and pathogenesis; however, it is not known which of the numerous interferon-stimulated genes (ISG) mediate the antiviral effect. A prominent family of ISGs is the interferoninduced with tetratricopeptide repeats (Ifit) genes comprising three members in mice, Ifit1/ISG56, Ifit2/ISG54 and Ifit3/ISG49. Intranasal infection with a low dose of VSV is not lethal to wild-type mice and all three Ifit genes are induced in the central nervous system of the infected mice. We tested their potential contributions to the observed protection of wild-type mice from VSV pathogenesis, by taking advantage of the newly generated knockout mice lacking either Ifit2 or Ifit1. We observed that in Ifit2 knockout (Ifit2 2/2 ) mice, intranasal VSV infection was uniformly lethal and death was preceded by neurological signs, such as ataxia and hind limb paralysis. In contrast, wild-type and Ifit1 2/2 mice were highly protected and survived without developing such disease. However, when VSV was injected intracranially, virus replication and survival were not significantly different between wild-type and Ifit2 2/2 mice. When administered intranasally, VSV entered the central nervous system through the olfactory bulbs, where it replicated equivalently in wild-type and Ifit2 2/2 mice and induced interferon-b. However, as the infection spread to other regions of the brain, VSV titers rose several hundred folds higher in Ifit2 2/2 mice as compared to wild-type mice. This was not caused by a broadened cell tropism in the brains of Ifit2 2/2 mice, where VSV still replicated selectively in neurons. Surprisingly, this advantage for VSV replication in the brains of Ifit2 2/2 mice was not observed in other organs, such as lung and liver. Pathogenesis by another neurotropic RNA virus, encephalomyocarditis virus, was not enhanced in the brains of Ifit2 2/2 mice. Our study provides a clear demonstration of tissue-, virus-and ISGspecific antiviral action of interferon. Citation: Fensterl V, Wetzel JL, Ramachandran S, Ogino T, Stohlman SA, et al. (2012) Interferon-Induced Ifit2/ISG54 Protects Mice from Lethal VSV Neuropathogenesis. PLoS Pathog 8(5): e1002712. 
 Title: Interferon-Induced Ifit2/ISG54 Protects Mice from Lethal VSV Neuropathogenesis
[A]:
True