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.

Example Input: Main point: Hydroxychloroquine was found to be more potent than chloroquine at inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Hydroxychloroquine sulfate 400 mg given twice daily for 1 day, followed by 200 mg twice daily for 4 more days is recommended to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. Abstract Background. The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) first broke out in Wuhan (China) and subsequently spread worldwide. Chloroquine has been sporadically used in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hydroxychloroquine shares the same mechanism of action as chloroquine, but its more tolerable safety profile makes it the preferred drug to treat malaria and autoimmune conditions. We propose that the immunomodulatory effect of hydroxychloroquine also may be useful in controlling the cytokine storm that occurs late-phase in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods. The pharmacological activity of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine was tested using SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero cells. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models (PBPK) were implemented for both drugs separately by integrating their in vitro data. Using the PBPK models, hydroxychloroquine concentrations in lung fluid were simulated under 5 different dosing regimens to explore the most effective regimen whilst considering the drug's safety profile. Results. Hydroxychloroquine (EC50=0.72 μM) was found to be more potent than chloroquine (EC50=5.47 μM) in vitro. Based on PBPK models results, a loading dose of 400 mg twice daily of hydroxychloroquine sulfate given orally, followed by a maintenance dose of 200 mg given twice daily for 4 days is recommended for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as it reached three times the potency of chloroquine phosphate when given 500 mg twice daily 5 days in advance. Hydroxychloroquine was found to be more potent than chloroquine to 4 / 25 inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.
Example Output: In Vitro Antiviral Activity and Projection of Optimized Dosing Design of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Example Input: 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 .
Example Output: Reply to Gautret et al. 2020: A Bayesian reanalysis of the effects of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on viral carriage in patients with COVID-19

Example Input: We isolated a replication-competent, neurotropic retrovirus (FrC6 virus) and its molecular clone A8 from the NB-tropic Friend murine leukemia virus (FLV) complex. For detection and characterization of the FrC6 and A8 viruses, monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against the FLV complex were established. Thirty MAbs, each of which reacted with the FLV-producing cell line, were tested for potential neutralizing activities; only two MAbs inhibited the proliferation of the A8 virus. These two MAbs were ineffective or had very weak neutralizing activities toward the non-neurotropic FLV strain clone 57 virus. Further characterization of MAbs by immunoprecipitation revealed that 4 MAbs recognized the envelope protein of the A8 virus. Two of these 4 MAbs recognized the surface glycoprotein gp70, requiring the conformational epitope of the virus for this recognition, while the other two MAbs, which were reactive with the transmembrane protein pl5E, were conformationindependent. Both of the MAbs against gp70 distinguished neuropathogenic and non-neuropathogenic viruses to some extent, through neutralizing activity or binding activity detected by immunoprecipitation, whereas the two MAbs against pl5E reacted with the viruses in a similar manner. Furthermore, one of the MAbs distinguished the viral antigen in the wall of the vacuolation that composes the spongiotic lesion induced by FrC6 viral infection of the brain. The Friend virus complex, composed of the replication-competent Friend murine leukemia virus (FLV) and the replication-defective spleen focus-forming virus * Corresponding author. Fax: +81 (426) 91 9315. 0168-1702/95/$09.50
Example Output:
Characterization of monoclonal antibodies recognizing neurotropic Friend murine leukemia virus