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".

[Q]: Paragraph: Mechanistic hypotheses about airborne infectious disease transmission have traditionally emphasized the role of coughing and sneezing, which are dramatic expiratory events that yield both easily visible droplets and large quantities of particles too small to see by eye. Nonetheless, it has long been known that normal speech also yields large quantities of particles that are too small to see by eye, but are large enough to carry a variety of communicable respiratory pathogens. Here we show that the rate of particle emission during normal human speech is positively correlated with the loudness (amplitude) of vocalization, ranging from approximately 1 to 50 particles per second (0.06 to 3 particles per cm 3 ) for low to high amplitudes, regardless of the language spoken (english, spanish, Mandarin, or Arabic). Furthermore, a small fraction of individuals behaves as "speech superemitters," consistently releasing an order of magnitude more particles than their peers. our data demonstrate that the phenomenon of speech superemission cannot be fully explained either by the phonic structures or the amplitude of the speech. these results suggest that other unknown physiological factors, varying dramatically among individuals, could affect the probability of respiratory infectious disease transmission, and also help explain the existence of superspreaders who are disproportionately responsible for outbreaks of airborne infectious disease. It has long been recognized that particles expelled during human expiratory events, such as sneezing, coughing, talking, and breathing, serve as vehicles for respiratory pathogen transmission 1-6 . The relative contribution of each expiratory activity in transmitting infectious microorganisms, however, remains unclear 4 . Much previous research has focused on coughing 7-12 and sneezing 11,13,14 activities that yield relatively large droplets (approximately 50 μm or larger) easily visible to the naked eye. Less noticeable, but arguably more infectious for some diseases, are the smaller particles emitted during sneezing and coughing as well as during breathing 15-17 and talking 16, 18, 19 . These small particles are believed to be generated during breathing and talking from the mucosal layers coating the respiratory tract via a combination of a "fluid-film burst" mechanism within the bronchioles and from vocal folds adduction and vibration within the larynx 6,20,21 . The particles emitted during breathing and typical speech predominantly average only 1 μm in diameter 15-17 and are thus too small to see without specialized equipment; most people outside of the community of bioaerosol researchers are less aware of them. Despite their small size, however, these micron-scale particles are sufficiently large to carry a variety of respiratory pathogens such as measles virus (50-500 nm) 22 , influenza virus (100 nm-1 µm) 23 , and Mycobacterium tuberculosis (1-3 µm) 24 . Indeed, recent work by Yan et al. has confirmed that significant amounts of influenza viral RNA are present in small particles (<5 μm) emitted by influenza-infected individuals during natural breathing, without coughing or sneezing 25 . These small particles are potentially more infectious than larger sneeze-or 
 Title: Aerosol emission and superemission during human speech increase with voice loudness
[A]: False


[Q]: Paragraph: A majority of emerging infectious diseases are of zoonotic origin. Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) has been employed to identify uncommon and novel infectious etiologies and characterize virus diversity in human, animal, and environmental samples. Here, we systematically reviewed studies that performed viral mNGS in common livestock (cattle, small ruminants, poultry, and pigs). We identified 2481 records and 120 records were ultimately included after a first and second screening. Pigs were the most frequently studied livestock and the virus diversity found in samples from poultry was the highest. Known animal viruses, zoonotic viruses, and novel viruses were reported in available literature, demonstrating the capacity of mNGS to identify both known and novel viruses. However, the coverage of metagenomic studies was patchy, with few data on the virome of small ruminants and respiratory virome of studied livestock. Essential metadata such as age of livestock and farm types were rarely mentioned in available literature, and only 10.8% of the datasets were publicly available. Developing a deeper understanding of livestock virome is crucial for detection of potential zoonotic and animal pathogens and One Health preparedness. Metagenomic studies can provide this background but only when combined with essential metadata and following the "FAIR" (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles. Viruses 2020, 12, 107 2 of 22 flocks and wild birds, suggesting that pre-existing biosecurity measurements could not keep up with the rate of livestock intensification [16] . In 2007-2010, a large-scale Q fever outbreak was reported in the Netherlands, affecting more than 3500 human cases and resulting in a huge economic loss [17, 18] . A steep increase in the number of goat farms most likely was the driver for the increased prevalence of Coxiella burnetii infections, with animal abortion waves that had gone unnoticed. The policy of voluntary reporting abortion outbreaks to the Animal Health Service hindered the timely detection of the circulation of Q fever, and therefore early interventions. These examples indicate that zoonotic risks in the livestock industry should be carefully managed and adapted to livestock intensification. The One Health approach has been coined for advocating collaboration between multiple stakeholders including veterinarians, clinicians, epidemiologists, virologists, microbiologists, ecologists, and policy makers to prevent and control EIDs through the human-animal-environment interface [19] . Surveillance of livestock and the surrounding environment is a hallmark of early detection but is currently targeted to known risks. Advances in Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies and rapid development of bioinformatics and computational tools offer new opportunities for EID surveillance in quality and in scale. Particularly, metagenomic NGS (mNGS) allows unbiased detection of all microbes and viruses in a sample, showing potential for timely detection of rare or novel infectious etiologies, as well as for surveillance of foodborne and waterborne viruses [20] [21] [22][23][24][25][26]. However, the use of mNGS as a potential surveillance tool requires a deeper understanding of what is "normal" diversity in humans [27], as well as wildlife [28,29] and farm animals [30]. Characterizing species-specific metagenomes could potentially be used to provide a surveillance baseline for early detection and for tracking of movements of pathogens across different hosts, and has been promoted by projects like the global virome project [31]. However, for such applications, detailed background is needed regarding coverage, representativeness, and biases in the study designs. Here, we conduct a systematic review to identify available literature that performed viral mNGS in common farm animals including cattle, small ruminants (goats and sheep), poultry, and pigs. We reviewed the data and metadata availability and quality of these studies. We further summarized reported viromes of common farm animals in order to translate these efforts as background virus diversity profiles of common farm animals to guide preparedness of diseases at the livestock-human interface. 
 Title: viruses Virus Metagenomics in Farm Animals: A Systematic Review
[A]: True


[Q]: Paragraph: When statistical analyses are reported, confirm that the following items are present in the relevant location (e.g. figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section). The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a discrete number and unit of measurement An indication of whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedly The statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one-or two-sided Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section. A description of all covariates tested A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons A full description of the statistics including central tendency (e.g. means) or other basic estimates (e.g. regression coefficient) AND variation (e.g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals) For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e.g. F, t, r) with confidence intervals, effect sizes, degrees of freedom and P value noted Give P values as exact values whenever suitable. For Bayesian analysis, information on the choice of priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo settings For hierarchical and complex designs, identification of the appropriate level for tests and full reporting of outcomes Estimates of effect sizes (e.g. Cohen's d, Pearson's r), indicating how they were calculated Clearly defined error bars State explicitly what error bars represent (e.g. SD, SE, CI) 
 Title: Corresponding author(s): Statistical parameters
[A]:
False