In this task, you're given a paragraph from the research paper and your task is to generate a suitable title for the research paper based on the given paper. Under 100 words is a good title length.

[EX Q]: Computational (in silico) methods have been developed and widely applied to pharmacology hypothesis development and testing. These in silico methods include databases, quantitative structure-activity relationships, similarity searching, pharmacophores, homology models and other molecular modeling, machine learning, data mining, network analysis tools and data analysis tools that use a computer. Such methods have seen frequent use in the discovery and optimization of novel molecules with affinity to a target, the clarification of absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity properties as well as physicochemical characterization. The first part of this review discussed the methods that have been used for virtual ligand and target-based screening and profiling to predict biological activity. The aim of this second part of the review is to illustrate some of the varied applications of in silico methods for pharmacology in terms of the targets addressed. We will also discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of in silico methods with respect to in vitro and in vivo methods for pharmacology research. Our conclusion is that the in silico pharmacology paradigm is ongoing and presents a rich array of opportunities that will assist in expediating the discovery of new targets, and ultimately lead to compounds with predicted biological activity for these novel targets.
[EX A]: In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: applications to targets and beyond

[EX Q]: One word can be used to best describe the theme of each day that has transpired since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: uncertainty. Urologic surgical residents around the nation are faced with the unknown when they walk through the doors of the hospital each day. While experience has taught us navigational strategies to handle these circumstances, the COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly brought new meaning to this concept. Priorities have quickly transitioned from closely following our previously developed academic curriculum and enhancing our surgical skills, to limiting physician-patient encounters and ensuring the safety and health of our team. Normalcy within our professional and personal lives is completely lost. Yet, as health care providers, we must and will forge on. We review the techniques and guidelines that our institution has implemented in order to allow us to do just that. We believe that our leadership, both at an enterprise and program level, has taken the necessary and early measures to prepare our residency cohort for the uncertain future and challenges posed by COVID-19. This plan emphasizes social and professional distancing, allows residents and faculty to stay current on academic topics, and provides reasonable opportunities for personal wellness, all while emphasizing safety and rationalization. Most importantly, however, we have continued to provide our patients with exceptional urologic care at 2 adult hospitals and 1 children's hospital in the Greater Akron, Ohio area. While we understand each residency program has a unique curriculum with a different number of residents that cover a range of different hospitals, we hope to provide insight into our personal experience. We believe that this method of organization allows a residency program to continue to grow professionally, socially, academically, and personally during the uncertainty that is COVID-19. This framework could serve as an immediate action plan for future pandemics and natural disasters, especially for residency programs that cover multiple hospitals and health care settings.
[EX A]: Editorial Cleveland Clinic Akron General Urology Residency Program's COVID-19 Experience

[EX Q]: Background-The data on human rhinovirus (HRV), coronavirus (hCoV), bocavirus (hBoV), metapneumovirus (hMPV), Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Bordetella pertussis infections in children with cancer is limited. Methods-We sought to determine prospectively the prevalence of respiratory pathogens in these children, using multiplexed-PCR. Results-We enrolled 253 children with upper, or lower respiratory tract infection (URTI/LRTI) during a one year period. A respiratory virus was detected in 193 (76%) patients; 156 (81%) patients had URTI. Human rhinovirus was the most common virus detected in 97 (62%) and 24 (65%) patients with URTI and LRTI, respectively. Leukemia or lymphoma (LL) was the most common underlying diagnosis in 95 (49%) patients followed by solid tumor 47 (24%), posthematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) 28 (15%), and brain tumor in 23 (12%) patients. By multiple logistic regression analysis hBoV was the most commonly detected respiratory virus in patients with LRTI (P = 0.008; odds ratio, 4.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-13.79). Coinfection with more than 1 virus was present in 47 (24%) patients, and did not increase the risk for LRTI. Two (0.7%) patients succumbed to LRTI from parainfluenza virus (PIV)-3 and respiratory syncytial virus/HRV infection, respectively. C.pneumoniae and M.pneumoniae were detected in 4 and 3 patients, respectively. Conclusions-HRV was the most common virus detected in children with cancer and post-HCT hospitalized with an acute respiratory illness, and was not associated with increased morbidity. Prospective studies with viral load determination and asymptomatic controls are needed to study the association of these emerging respiratory viruses with LRTI in children with cancer and post-HCT.
[EX A]:
Prospective Detection of Respiratory Pathogens in Symptomatic Children with Cancer