instruction:
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".
question:
Paragraph: Feedback from operational stakeholders who manage or respond to outbreaks is that they are often too busy to review literature or obtain relevant background information to assist them with acute response. Unlike a traditional analytical outbreak investigation report, Watching Briefs are intended as a rapid resource for public health or other first responders in the field on topical, serious or current outbreaks, and provide a digest of relevant information including key features of an outbreak, comparison with past outbreaks and a literature review. They can be completed by responders to an outbreak, or by anyone interested in or following an outbreak using public or open source data, including news reports. 
 Title: Watching brief Title Wuhan novel coronavirus 2019nCoV
answer:
False


question:
Paragraph: Purpose: Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as virus interference. Test-negative study designs are often utilized to calculate influenza vaccine effectiveness. The virus interference phenomenon goes against the basic assumption of the test-negative vaccine effectiveness study that vaccination does not change the risk of infection with other respiratory illness, thus potentially biasing vaccine effectiveness results in the positive direction. This study aimed to investigate virus interference by comparing respiratory virus status among Department of Defense personnel based on their influenza vaccination status. Furthermore, individual respiratory viruses and their association with influenza vaccination were examined. Results: We compared vaccination status of 2880 people with non-influenza respiratory viruses to 3240 people with pan-negative results. Comparing vaccinated to non-vaccinated patients, the adjusted odds ratio for non-flu viruses was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86, 1.09; p = 0.60). Additionally, the vaccination status of 3349 cases of influenza were compared to three different control groups: all controls (N = 6120), non-influenza positive controls (N = 2880), and pan-negative controls (N = 3240). The adjusted ORs for the comparisons among the three control groups did not vary much (range: 0.46-0.51). Conclusions: Receipt of influenza vaccination was not associated with virus interference among our population. Examining virus interference by specific respiratory viruses showed mixed results. Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus; however, significant protection with vaccination was associated not only with most influenza viruses, but also parainfluenza, RSV, and non-influenza virus coinfections. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 
 Title: Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season
answer:
False


question:
Paragraph: Background: Various kinds of commercial molecular systems have been developed for fast and more accurate detection of respiratory viruses. Anyplex TM II RV16 [RV16] was designed for simultaneous detection of 16 respiratory viruses using multiplex PCR coupled with TOCE TM technology. Objectives: To compare the performance of RV16 with those of culture and Seeplex ® RV15 ACE [RV15] by determining their sensitivity and specificity. Study design: Seven hundred and thirty respiratory samples were tested by modified shell vial culture method, RV16, and RV15. For molecular tests, automated nucleic acid extraction and liquid handling system using MICROLAB Nimbus IVD (Hamilton, USA) was adopted to maximize the workflow and accuracy. Performance of each assay was determined against a composite reference standard. Results: Two hundred and one samples (28%) out of 730 samples were positive by culture, while additional 281 (39%) were positive by RV16 or RV15. Sensitivities of RV16, RV15, and culture for virus tested were as follows: 100/93/63% for influenza A, 90/80/69% for influenza B, 98/94/63% for RSV, 98/52/23% for adenovirus, and 100/75/46% for PIV. For viruses not covered by culture, sensitivities of RV16 and RV15 were as follows: 99/81% for rhinovirus, 92/100% for coronavirus OC43, 100/56% for coronavirus 229E/NL63, 92/88% for metapneumovirus, 100/62% for bocavirus, and 91/91% for enterovirus. Overall, the specificities of culture, RV16, and RV15 (Seegene) were 100/99.9/99.9%. Conclusions: RV16 assay was superior to culture method and RV15 and will be a promising tool for patient management and public health epidemiology. 
 Title: Evaluation of a novel real-time RT-PCR using TOCE technology compared with culture and Seeplex RV15 for simultaneous detection of respiratory viruses
answer:

False