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: The binding between peptide epitopes and major histocompatibility complex proteins (MHCs) is an important event in the cellular immune response. Accurate prediction of the binding between short peptides and the MHC molecules has long been a principal challenge for immunoinformatics. Recently, the modeling of MHC-peptide binding has come to emphasize quantitative predictions: instead of categorizing peptides as "binders" or "non-binders" or as "strong binders" and "weak binders", recent methods seek to make predictions about precise binding affinities. We developed a quantitative support vector machine regression (SVR) approach, called SVRMHC, to model peptide-MHC binding affinities. As a non-linear method, SVRMHC was able to generate models that out-performed existing linear models, such as the "additive method". By adopting a new "11-factor encoding" scheme, SVRMHC takes into account similarities in the physicochemical properties of the amino acids constituting the input peptides. When applied to MHC-peptide binding data for three mouse class I MHC alleles, the SVRMHC models produced more accurate predictions than those produced previously. Furthermore, comparisons based on Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated that SVRMHC was able to outperform several prominent methods in identifying strongly binding peptides. As a method with demonstrated performance in the quantitative modeling of MHCpeptide binding and in identifying strong binders, SVRMHC is a promising immunoinformatics tool with not inconsiderable future potential. 
 Title: Quantitative prediction of mouse class I MHC peptide binding affinity using support vector machine regression (SVR) models
False

Paragraph: medRxiv preprint [Abstract]Objective Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become pandemic in the world. The need for IgG-IgM combined antibody test is booming, but data on diagnostic indexes evaluation was inadequate. The aim of this study was to evaluate diagnostic indexes of a rapid IgG-IgM combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2. Methods A total of 179 patients were enrolled. Serum were collected for IgG-IgM combined antibody test and corresponding nasal and pharyngeal swab specimens were collected for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR. According to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results, patients under study were categorized as PCR positive group in 90 patients and PCR negative group in 89 patients. Results 1. Of the 90 PCR positive samples, 77 were tested positive by SARS-CoV-2 IgG-IgM test kit, yielding a sensitivity of 85.6%. Meanwhile, of the 89 PCR negative sample, 8 samples were detected positive, resulting in a specificity of 91%. Positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of this test kit was 95.1%, 82.7%, and 88.3%, respectively. Kappa efficiency between IgG/IgM test kit and RT-PCR were 0.75. 2. Accuracy in mild/common and severe/critical subgroup were 73.9% and 97.7%, respectively. Accuracy in clinical confirmed, suspected cases and other disease subgroups were 70%, 60%, and 100%, respectively. 3. Patients were further divided into '0 -7', '8 -15' and '>= 16' groups according to the time from illness onset to sample collection. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in these three groups were 18.8%, 77.8% and 40%; 100%, 50% and 87.5%; 100%, 64.3%, and 93.9, respectively. Conclusion The sensitivity and specificity of this ease-of-use IgG/IgM combined test kit were adequate, plus short turnaround time, no specific requirements for additional equipment or skilled technicians, all of these collectively contributed to its competence for mass testing. At the current stage, it cannot take the place of SARA-CoV-2 nucleic acid RT-PCR, but can be served as a complementary option for RT-PCR. The combination of RT-PCR and IgG-IgM combined test kit could provide further insight into SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. 
 Title: Diagnostic Indexes of a Rapid IgG/IgM Combined Antibody Test for SARS-CoV-2
True

Paragraph: H-2 class I antigens, but not class II antigens, were detected on the surface of glial cells persistently infected with mouse hepatitis virus strain A59 (MHV-A59) as late as 90 days post-infection. Uninfected glial cells remained negative for H-2 class I and class II surface antigens. We have previously shown that conditioned media from infected glial cell cultures (supernatants) contain a factor unrelated to infectious virus and capable of inducing H-2 class I antigens on uninfected glial cells. The synthesis of this factor appears to be dependent on production of infectious virus since the H-2 inducing activity could not be detected 3 days following the addition of neutralizing antibodies to the cultures. This suggests that H-2 inducing activity contains an unstable component, the synthesis of which is dependent on continual virus production. Persistent MHV infection and H-2 class I antigen expression may play a role in MHV-induced demyelination. Mouse hepatitis virus, strain A59 (MHV-A59), a neurotropic coronavirus, causes limbic encephalitis followed by subacute and chronic demyelination (Lavi et al. 
 Title: Induction of MHC class I antigens on glial cells is dependent on persistent mouse hepatitis virus infection

False