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".

Paragraph: Background: The elevated risk of occupational infection such as tuberculosis among health workers in many countries raises the question of whether the quality of occupational health and safety (OHS) and infection prevention and control (IPC) can be improved by auditing. The objectives of this study were to measure (1) audited compliance of primary health-care facilities in South Africa with national standards for OHS and IPC, (2) change in compliance at reaudit three years after baseline, and (3) the inter-rater reliability of the audit. Methods: The study analyzed audits of 60 primary health-care facilities in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Baseline external audits in the time period 2011e2012 were compared with follow-up internal audits in 2014e2015. Audits at 25 facilities that had both internal and external audits conducted in 2014/2015 were used to measure reliability. Results: At baseline, 25% of 60 facilities were "noncompliant" (audit score<50%), 48% "conditionally compliant" (score >50 < 80%), and only 27% "compliant" (score >80%). Overall, there was no significant improvement in compliance three years after baseline. Percentage agreement on specific items between internal and external audits ranged from 28% to 92% and kappa from -0.8 to 0.41 (poor to moderate). Conclusion: Low baseline compliance with OHSeIPC measures and lack of improvement over three years reflect the difficulties of quality improvement in these domains. Low inter-rater reliability of the audit instrument undermines the audit process. Evidence-based investment of effort is required if repeat auditing is to contribute to occupational risk reduction for health workers. 
 Title: Repeat Auditing of Primary Health-care Facilities Against Standards for Occupational Health and Infection Control: A Study of Compliance and Reliability-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
False

Paragraph: We evaluated Qiagen EZ1 (Valencia, CA) and bioMérieux (Durham, NC) easyMAG extractors compared with Qiagen manual extraction using targets and matrices commonly available in the clinical laboratory. Pooled samples were spiked with various organisms, serially diluted, and extracted in duplicate. The organisms/matrices were Bordetella pertussis/bronchoalveolar lavage, herpes simplex virus II/cerebrospinal fluid, coxsackievirus A9/cerebrospinal fluid, BK virus/plasma, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae/endotracheal tube samples. Extracts were amplified in duplicate using realtime PCR assays, and amplification of the target at a cycle threshold of 35 using the manual method was used for comparison. Amplification efficiency of nucleic acids extracted by automated methods was similar to that by the manual method except for a loss of efficiency for M. pneumoniae in endotracheal tube samples. The EZ1 viral kit 2.0 gave better results for coxsackievirus A9 than the EZ1 viral kit version 1.0. At the lowest limit of detection (past a cycle threshold of 35), the easyMAG was more likely to produce amplifiable nucleic acid than were either the EZ1 or manual extraction. Operational complexity, defined as the number of manipulations required to obtain an extracted sample, was the lowest for the easyMAG. The easyMAG was the most expensive of the methods, followed by the EZ1 kit and manual extraction 
 Title: Comparison of Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction Methods with Manual Extraction
True

Paragraph: China. In the current study we investigated the genetic diversity of RVAs in fecal samples from 87 straw-colored fruit bats living in close contact with humans in Cameroon using viral metagenomics. Five (near) complete RVA genomes were obtained. A single RVA strain showed a partial relationship with the Kenyan bat RVA strain, whereas the other strains were completely novel. Only the VP7 and VP4 genes showed significant variability, indicating the occurrence of frequent reassortment events. Comparing these bat RVA strains with currently used human RVA screening primers indicated that most of the novel VP7 and VP4 segments would not be detected in routine epidemiological screening studies. Therefore, novel consensus screening primers were developed and used to screen samples from infants with gastroenteritis living in close proximity with the studied bat population. Although RVA infections were identified in 36% of the infants, there was no evidence of zoonosis. This study identified multiple novel bat RVA strains, but further epidemiological studies in humans will have to assess if these viruses have the potential to cause gastroenteritis in humans. Rotaviruses (RVs) are major enteric pathogens causing severe dehydrating diarrhea mostly in juvenile humans and animals worldwide 1 . RVs belong to the family Reoviridae and the genus Rotavirus consists of eight species (A-H) 2 . Recently, a distinct canine RV species has been identified and tentatively named Rotavirus I (RVI), although ratification by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) is pending 3 . Group A rotaviruses (RVAs) are the most common of all rotavirus species and infect a wide range of animals including humans 4 . The rotavirus genome consists of 11 double-stranded RNA segments encoding 6 structural viral proteins (VP1-VP4, VP6, and VP7) and 6 nonstructural proteins (NSP1-NSP6). In 2008, a uniform classification system was proposed for each of the 11 gene segments resulting in G-, P-, I-, R-, C-, M-, A-, N-, T-, 
 Title: Novel highly divergent reassortant bat rotaviruses in Cameroon, without evidence of zoonosis

False