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]: Objectives: We aimed to develop a prospective prediction tool on CrimeaneCongo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF) to identify geographic regions at risk. The tool could support public health decision-makers in implementation of an effective control strategy in a timely manner. Methods: We used monthly surveillance data between 2004 and 2015 to predict case counts between 2016 and 2017 prospectively. The Turkish nationwide surveillance data set collected by the Ministry of Health contained 10 411 confirmed CCHF cases. We collected potential explanatory covariates about climate, land use, and animal and human populations at risk to capture spatiotemporal transmission dynamics. We developed a structured Gaussian process algorithm and prospectively tested this tool predicting the future year's cases given past years' cases. Results: We predicted the annual cases in 2016 and 2017 as 438 and 341, whereas the observed cases were 432 and 343, respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficient and normalized root mean squared error values for 2016 and 2017 predictions were (0.83; 0.58) and (0.87; 0.52), respectively. The most important covariates were found to be the number of settlements with fewer than 25 000 inhabitants, latitude, longitude and potential evapotranspiration (evaporation and transpiration). Conclusions: Main driving factors of CCHF dynamics were human population at risk in rural areas, geographical dependency and climate effect on ticks. Our model was able to prospectively predict the numbers of CCHF cases. Our proof-of-concept study also provided insight for understanding possible mechanisms of infectious diseases and found important directions for practice and policy to combat against emerging infectious diseases. Ç. Ak, Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26:123.e1e123.e7
[EX A]: A prospective prediction tool for understanding CrimeaneCongo haemorrhagic fever dynamics in Turkey

[EX Q]: Dendritic cells (DCs) are recognized as highly potent antigen-presenting cells that are able to stimulate cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) responses with antitumor activity. Consequently, DCs have been explored as cellular vaccines in cancer immunotherapy. To that end, DCs are modified with tumor antigens to enable presentation of antigen-derived peptides to CTLs. In this review we discuss the use of viral vectors for in situ modification of DCs, focusing on their clinical applications as anticancer vaccines. Among the viral vectors discussed are those derived from viruses belonging to the families of the Poxviridae, Adenoviridae, Retroviridae, Togaviridae, Paramyxoviridae, and Rhabdoviridae. We will further shed light on how the combination of viral vector-based vaccination with T-cell supporting strategies will bring this strategy to the next level. Since their discovery in 1973, it was clear that dendritic cells (DCs) stood out above the immune cell pack (1, 2). They are morphologically distinct from all other immune cell types and are gifted with an unparalleled capacity to take up, process and present self and foreign antigens to both CD4 + and CD8 + T cells. DCs are critical intermediaries between the innate and adaptive immune systems, as they stimulate, regulate, and shape both immunity and tolerance in all its disguises. Ralph Steinmann, who discovered these cells, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2011, because the discovery of DCs changed medicine (3). Dendritic cells in both humans and mice represent a population of at least four different subtypes with distinct phenotypical and functional characteristics (4-7). These subsets are: plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs), two subsets of conventional DCs (cDC1 and cDC2), and inflammatory DCs. The latter represent a monocyte-derived subset that appears during inflammatory responses (Table 1) . Recently, additional types of human blood DCs, monocytes, and progenitors were revealed using single cell RNA-sequencing. The group of Prof. Nir Hacohen identified pDCs next to cDC progenitor-derived cDC1 (Clec9A + ) and two types of CD1c + cDC2, of which one can also be derived from CD14 + DCs. Furthermore they found a CD141 − CD1c − CD11c + DC subset derived from CD16 + monocytes and an AXL + Siglec6 + subset (8). Future research will have to unravel a possible murine representative for the human cDC2 and AXL + Siglec6 + DC subset. Also, Langerhans cells have been considered an important DC subset for vaccination as they are localized in the epidermis (HLA-DR + CD11c + CD1a + CD207 + ). However, recent evidence suggests that they are related to macrophages, another antigen-presenting cell (APC) type with potential antitumor activity (9).
[EX A]: The Journey of in vivo Virus Engineered Dendritic Cells From Bench to Bedside: A Bumpy Road

[EX Q]: Background: There is limited literature on the frequency of face-touching behavior as a potential vector for the self-inoculation and transmission of Staphylococcus aureus and other common respiratory infections. Methods: A behavioral observation study was undertaken involving medical students at the University of New South Wales. Their face-touching behavior was observed via videotape recording. Using standardized scoring sheets, the frequency of hand-to-face contacts with mucosal or nonmucosal areas was tallied and analyzed. Results: On average, each of the 26 observed students touched their face 23 times per hour. Of all face touches, 44% (1,024/2,346) involved contact with a mucous membrane, whereas 56% (1,322/2,346) of contacts involved nonmucosal areas. Of mucous membrane touches observed, 36% (372) involved the mouth, 31% (318) involved the nose, 27% (273) involved the eyes, and 6% (61) were a combination of these regions. Conclusion: Increasing medical students' awareness of their habituated face-touching behavior and improving their understanding of self-inoculation as a route of transmission may help to improve hand hygiene compliance. Hand hygiene programs aiming to improve compliance with before and after patient contact should include a message that mouth and nose touching is a common practice. Hand hygiene is therefore an essential and inexpensive preventive method to break the colonization and transmission cycle associated with self-inoculation. Crown
[EX A]:
Face touching: A frequent habit that has implications for hand hygiene