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: The dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmissibility after symptom onset remains unknown. We conducted a prospective case-ascertained study on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases and their contacts. Secondary clinical attack rate (considering symptomatic cases only) was analyzed for different exposure windows after symptom onset of index cases and for different exposure settings. Thirty-two confirmed patients were enrolled and 12 paired data (index-secondary cases) were identified among the 1,043 contacts. The secondary clinical attack rate was 0.9% (95% CI 0.5-1.7%). The attack rate was higher among those whose exposure to index cases started within five days of symptom onset (2.4%, 95% CI 1.1-4.5%) than those who were exposed later (zero case from 605 close contacts, 95% CI 0-0.61%). The attack rate was also higher among household contacts (13.6%, 95% CI 4.7-29.5%) and nonhousehold family contacts (8.5%, 95% CI 2.4-20.3%) than that in healthcare or other settings. The higher secondary clinical attack rate for contacts near symptom onset remained when the analysis was restricted to household and family contacts. There was a trend of increasing attack rate with the age of contacts (p for trend < 0.001). High transmissibility of COVID-19 near symptom onset suggests that finding and isolating symptomatic patients alone may not suffice to contain the epidemic, and more generalized social distancing measures are required. Rapid reduction of transmissibility over time implies that prolonged hospitalization of mild cases might not be necessary in large epidemics. 
 Title: High transmissibility of COVID-19 near symptom onset

A: True
****
Q: 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

A: False
****
Q: Paragraph: Being madly in love with all the advances in minimally invasive medicine and technology I often tell my friends the stories of how interventional radiology (IR) changes lives. One of these unintended stories led to a much bigger audience of TED community and spread the word about IR far beyond the circle of my friends. As the TED slogan promised, participating in the event 1 made me realize that our ideas of better medicine are worth sharing. It also made me think that better communication with the public is possible, and it does not take genius. It takes a willingness to try. We know that IR with its broad procedural spectrum, safety of minimally invasive approach, lower requirement for anesthesia and hospitalization, and cost-effectiveness has a strong stand in the evolving universal healthcare practice model. But, as Goethe said, knowing is not enough; we must apply. 2 Then, how can we as medical community increase the exercise of IR procedures? The starting point is to accept that many people, including medical professionals, do not know what diseases we can treat and what diagnostic or therapeutic services we can provide. Either it is a palliative treatment of metastases, or elective embolization of uterine fibroids, or emergent lysis of pulmonary embolism-it is our responsibility to find the appropriate patients and let both patients and primary physicians know what options we have to offer. 
 Title: Journal Pre-proof Guest Editorial: Radiology Nurses Can Raise the Impact on Promoting IR

A:
False
****