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: As infectious disease outbreaks emerge, public health agencies often enact vaccination and social distancing measures to slow transmission. Their success depends on not only strategies and resources, but also public adherence. Individual willingness to take precautions may be influenced by global factors, such as news media, or local factors, such as infected family members or friends. Here, we compare three modes of epidemiological decisionmaking in the midst of a growing outbreak using network-based mathematical models that capture plausible heterogeneity in human contact patterns. Individuals decide whether to adopt a recommended intervention based on overall disease prevalence, the proportion of social contacts infected, or the number of social contacts infected. While all strategies can substantially mitigate transmission, vaccinating (or self isolating) based on the number of infected acquaintances is expected to prevent the most infections while requiring the fewest intervention resources. Unlike the other strategies, it has a substantial herd effect, providing indirect protection to a large fraction of the population. misinformation from the "anti-vaxxer" movement [8, [11] [12] [13] . Recently, there have been calls for a special government commission on vaccine safety, despite overwhelming scientific consensus that vaccines are both safe and effective [12, [14] [15] [16] . As outbreaks unfold, people can take a variety precautionary measures to avoid infection, including immunization and social distancing [1, [17] [18] [19] . They often judge personal risk based on their impressions of overall disease prevalence and severity [2, [20] [21] [22] [23] . When infection risk appears low, small risks of adverse effects from the vaccine can seem relatively important and cause vaccine coverage to drop below levels required to control transmission. A variety of other factors can influence the perceived utility of disease prevention, including epidemiological news and rumors, costs of vaccination and other control measures, trust in health professionals, government agencies, media and non-official information sources, as well as societal pressure to ensure the health of one's children [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] . Studies have shown that media reports about outbreaks that specify numbers of cases, hospitalizations or deaths, can influence avoidance behavior and contact patterns at both individual and community levels. In some cases, oversimplified or erroneous media reports regarding flawed vaccines can trigger panic and increases in vaccine hesitancy [30] [31] [32] [33] . For both seasonal and pandemic influenza, such interactions between vaccination decision-making and transmission dynamics can profoundly shape the course of epidemics [20, [34] [35] [36] . Individual intervention decisions can have far-reaching effects. For example, vaccination protects not only the immunized individual, but also social contacts who might have been infected by the individual. Social distancing decisions may break chains of transmission by protecting the decision-maker and more generally disrupting social dynamics. Following [37, 38] , we refer to this indirect protection as a herd effect. Although previously equated to the reduction in incidence in the unimmunized population [38], we quantify the herd effect of an intervention effort by estimating the number of infections averted per vaccine administered (or per individual social distancing action). The general phenomenon in which individual intervention actions reduce the risk of infection to others has also been called vaccination efficiency, vaccination effectiveness, herd immunity, and indirect protection [37] [38] [39] [40] . The magnitude of the herd effect will critically depend on contact patterns [41, 42]. Measures taken by gregarious individuals may have greater immediate benefits than those taken by solitary individuals, with downstream epidemiological consequences modulated by the full social network [43, 44] . Contact patterns may also influence the decision-making process itself, by constraining epidemiological perspectives. When gauging infection risk, individuals may consider global information (e.g., from news media) or local first-hand encounters with disease (e.g., infected acquaintances, friends or family members) [30, 31] . While traditional compartmental models assume homogeneity in both epidemiological risks and intervention benefits, network-based models provide a tractable framework for studying the complex interplay between contact networks, intervention decision making and disease transmission [34, [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] . Here, we investigate the epidemiological impacts of different decision paradigms using a network-based SIR epidemic model, in which individuals also make vaccination or social distancing choices based on their perceived epidemiological risks. Depending on the decision model, they estimate either overall disease prevalence, their number of infected social contacts, or their fraction of infected social contacts. When the perceived threat is sufficiently high, they take a measure that immediately affords full protection for the duration of the epidemic. We compare the efficacy of these three different paradigms across a range of diseases in a realistically heterogeneous network, and show that the most naive model-simply counting one's infected contacts-affords the most epidemiological protection using the least amount of resources (e.g., vaccinations or economic costs associated with social distancing). Local risk perception enhances epidemic control PLOS ONE | https://doi. 
 Title: Local risk perception enhances epidemic control
[A]: True


[Q]: Paragraph: Coccidiosis is an economically significant disease of poultry caused by species of Eimeria, a parasitic protozoan. Disease can result in poor feed conversion, reduced weight gain, and can lead to the development of necrotic enteritis. For prevention of coccidiosis, poultry are commonly vaccinated with a live, sporulated oocysts mass applied with a vaccination cabinet in the hatchery. Traditionally, coccidia vaccines have been applied by coarse spray in a water based diluent, however, new technology using gel diluents has entered the US market. Gel diluents can have variable viscosities and are "dropped" onto chicks with an applicator bar. It is thought that gel droplets remain intact on the birds for longer than water based droplets, allowing more time for preening and ingestion of oocysts. In this experiment, the efficacy of a commercial coccidia vaccine applied with a water based diluent, a more viscous gel diluent, and a less viscous gel diluent was compared. Fecal samples were collected at multiple time points post-vaccination to quantify vaccine oocyst shedding. Shedding in the first cycle (days 5 to 8 post-vaccination) was related to the number of oocysts received from each application method, where the groups receiving higher doses shed more oocysts. However, a decrease in shedding was seen for the more viscous gel group in the second cycle (days 12 to 15 post-vaccination). Chickens were challenged with Eimeria maxima oocysts and 7 days post-challenge body weight gains and gross and microscopic lesions were recorded to evaluate protection levels for the different vaccine applications. All vaccinated groups appeared to be protected based on body weight gain and lesion scoring. The results of this project indicate that all vaccine applications are effective at protecting against Eimeria maxima challenge when using a proper dose of vaccine that allows for repeated oocyst cycling in the litter post-vaccination. 
 Title: Evaluation of a coccidia vaccine using spray and gel applications
[A]: True


[Q]: Paragraph: A rapid review was performed to determine (1) the number and causes of reported laboratory-acquired infections (LAI) in the Asia-Pacific region; (2) their significance and threat to the community; (3) the primary risk factors associated with LAIs; (4) the consequences in the event of a LAI or pathogen escape; and (5) to make general recommendations regarding biosafety practices for diagnosis and research in the Asia-Pacific region. A search for LAI and zoonoses in the Asia-Pacific region using online search engines revealed a relatively low number of reports. Only 27 LAI reports were published between 1982 and 2016. The most common pathogens associated with LAIs were dengue virus, Arthroderma spp., Brucella spp., Mycobacterium spp., Rickettsia spp., and Shigella spp. Seventy-eight percent (21 out of 27 LAI reports) occurred in high-income countries (i.e., Australia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan) where laboratories were likely to comply with international biosafety standards. Two upper-middle income countries (China (2), and Malaysia (2)) and one lower-middle income country (India (2)) reported LAI incidents. The majority of the reports (fifty-two percent (14/27)) of LAIs occurred in research laboratories. Five LAI reports were from clinical or diagnostic laboratories that are considered at the frontier for zoonotic disease detection. Governments and laboratories in the Asia-Pacific region should be encouraged to report LAI cases as it provides a useful tool to monitor unintended release of zoonotic pathogens and to further improve laboratory biosafety. Non-reporting of LAI events could pose a risk of disease transmission from infected laboratory staff to communities and the environment. The international community has an important and continuing role to play in supporting laboratories in the Asia-Pacific region to ensure that they maintain the safe working environment for the staff and their families, and the wider community. 
 Title: Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease A Review of Laboratory-Acquired Infections in the Asia-Pacific: Understanding Risk and the Need for Improved Biosafety for Veterinary and Zoonotic Diseases
[A]:
False