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]: In trial 1, phase 1, 48 male Holstein calves initially 2 to 4 d of age were transported 3.5 h to the research facility. Calves were randomly selected to either receive a s.c. injection of Zuprevo (Merck Animal Health, Summit, NJ; 4 mg of tildipirosin/kg of BW; TIL) the day after arrival (d 0) and again at weaning (d 42) or receive no injections (CON). Calves were fed 0.66 kg of milk replacer DM daily for 39 d and then 0.33 kg daily for 3 d. A starter was fed free choice for the 56 d of phase 1. In trial 1, phase 2, the same calves from phase 1 grouped by CON and TIL were moved to group pens (4 pens per treatment, 4 calves per pen) for the next 56 d. The starter was blended with 5% chopped grass hay and fed free choice. Trial 2 was similar to trial 1, phase 2 and used 48 two-month-old male Holstein calves. Calves were randomly selected to receive either a s.c. injection of Zuprevo (4 mg of tildipirosin/kg of BW; TIL) on d 0 or no injections (CON). In trial 1, phase 1, preweaning ADG and BCS change; postweaning starter intake and hip width change; overall starter intake, ADG, and hip width change; final hip width; and final BCS were greater for TIL than CON. During phase 2 of trial 1 and trial 2, calf ADG and hip width change were greater for TIL than CON. Overall, in transported Holstein calves, TIL improved ADG and structural growth by approximately 13%.
[EX A]: Case Study: Control of respiratory disease in male Holstein calves with tildipirosin and effect on health and growth from 0 to 4 months of age

[EX Q]: We evaluated the acceptability of an additional ad hoc influenza vaccination among the health care professionals following seasons with significant antigenic drift. Self-administered, anonymous surveys were performed by hard copy questionnaires in public hospitals, and by an on-line platform available to all healthcare professionals, from April 1st to May 31st, 2015. A total of 1290 healthcare professionals completed the questionnaires, including doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals working in both the public and private systems. Only 31.8% of participating respondents expressed an intention to receive the additional vaccine, despite that the majority of them agreed or strongly agreed that it would bring benefit to the community (88.9%), save lives (86.7%), reduce medical expenses (76.3%), satisfy public expectation (82.8%), and increase awareness of vaccination (86.1%). However, a significant proportion expressed concern that the vaccine could disturb the normal immunization schedule (45.5%); felt uncertain what to do in the next vaccination round (66.0%); perceived that the summer peak might not occur (48.2%); and believed that the summer peak might not be of the same virus (83.5%). Furthermore, 27.8% of all respondents expected that the additional vaccination could weaken the efficacy of previous vaccinations; 51.3% was concerned about side effects; and 61.3% estimated that there would be a low uptake rate. If the supply of vaccine was limited, higher priority groups were considered to include the elderly aged !65 years with chronic medical conditions (89.2%), the elderly living in residential care homes (87.4%), and longstay residents of institutions for the disabled (80.7%). The strongest factors associated with accepting the additional vaccine included immunization with influenza vaccines in the past 3 years, higher perceived risk of contracting influenza, and higher perceived severity of the disease impact. The acceptability to an additional ad hoc influenza vaccination was low among healthcare professionals. This could have a negative impact on such additional vaccination campaigns since healthcare professionals are a key driver for vaccine acceptance. The discordance in perceived risk and acceptance of vaccination regarding self versus public deserves further evaluation. Abbreviations: AOR = adjusted odds ratios, WHO = world health organization. Editor: Barry Margulies. Ã x 2 test or Fisher exact tests for variables with any cell <5. Values are numbers (percentages) of respondents unless stated otherwise. The values in bold represented those with P < 0.10, which were selected as variables in the multivariate regression analysis.
[EX A]: Ad Hoc Influenza Vaccination During Years of Significant Antigenic Drift in a Tropical City With 2 Seasonal Peaks A Cross-Sectional Survey Among Health Care Practitioners

[EX Q]: Blood transfusion in burns larger than 20% total body surface area (TBSA) are frequent due to operative procedures, blood sampling, and physiologic response to burn injury. Optimizing the use of blood transfusions requires an understanding of the physiology of burn injury, the risks and benefits of blood transfusion, and the indications for transfusion. Age also plays a role in determining blood transfusion requirements. Children in particular have a different physiology than adults, which needs to be considered prior to transfusing blood and blood products. This article describes the physiologic differences between children and adults in general and after burn injury and describes how these differences impact blood transfusion practices in children.
[EX A]:
Children are not little adults: blood transfusion in children with burn injury