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".

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Partetravirus is a recently described group of animal parvoviruses which include the human partetravirus, bovine partetravirus and porcine partetravirus (previously known as human parvovirus 4, bovine hokovirus and porcine hokovirus respectively). In this report, we describe the discovery and genomic characterization of partetraviruses in bovine and ovine samples from China. These partetraviruses were detected by PCR in 1.8% of bovine liver samples, 66.7% of ovine liver samples and 71.4% of ovine spleen samples. One of the bovine partetraviruses detected in the present samples is phylogenetically distinct from previously reported bovine partetraviruses and likely represents a novel genotype. The ovine partetravirus is a novel partetravirus and phylogenetically most related to the bovine partetraviruses. The genome organization is conserved amongst these viruses, including the presence of a putative transmembrane protein encoded by an overlapping reading frame in ORF2. Results from the present study provide further support to the classification of partetraviruses as a separate genus in Parvovirinae. 
 Title: Discovery and Genomic Characterization of a Novel Ovine Partetravirus and a New Genotype of Bovine Partetravirus

Output: True


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Newton's Principia introduces four rules of reasoning for natural philosophy. Although useful, there is a concern about whether Newton's rules guarantee truth. After redirecting the discussion from truth to validity, I show that these rules are valid insofar as they fulfill Goodman's criteria for inductive rules and Newton's own methodological program of experimental philosophy; provided that cross-checks are used prior to applications of rule 4 and immediately after applications of rule 2 the following activities are pursued: (1) research addressing observations that systematically deviate from theoretical idealizations and (2) applications of theory that safeguard ongoing research from proceeding down a garden path. # 
 Title: Do Newton's rules of reasoning guarantee truth . . . must they?

Output: False


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Background: We undertook a 2X2 factorial, randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess whether vitamin D 3 supplementation (10,000 international units per week) versus placebo and gargling versus no gargling could prevent viral, clinical upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) in university students. Methods: We randomized 600 students into 4 treatment arms: 1) vitamin D 3 and gargling, 2) placebo and gargling, 3) vitamin D 3 and no gargling, and 4) placebo and no gargling. Students completed weekly electronic surveys and submitted self-collected mid-turbinate nasal flocked swabs during September and October in 2010 or 2011. Symptomatic students also completed an electronic symptom diary. The primary and secondary outcomes were the occurrence of symptomatic clinical URTI and laboratory confirmed URTI respectively. Results: Of 600 participants, 471 (78.5%) completed all surveys while 43 (7.2%) completed none; 150 (25.0%) reported clinical URTI. Seventy participants (23.3%) randomized to vitamin D 3 reported clinical URTI compared to 80 (26.7%) randomized to placebo (RR:0.79, CI 95 :0.61-1.03, p = 0.09). Eighty-five participants (28.3%) randomized to gargling reported clinical URTI compared to 65 participants (21.7%) randomized to the no gargling arm (RR:1.3, CI 95 :0.92-1.57, p = 0.19). Laboratory testing identified 70 infections (46.7 per 100 URTIs). Vitamin D 3 treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk for laboratory confirmed URTI (RR: 0.54, CI 95 :0.34-0.84, p = 0.007) and with a significantly lower mean viral load measured as log 10 viral copies/mL (mean difference: −0.89, CI 95: -1.7, −0.06, p = 0.04). Fewer students assigned to gargling experienced laboratory confirmed URTI, however this was not statistically significant (RR:0.82, CI 95 :0.53-1.26, p = 0.36). Conclusions: These results suggest that vitamin D 3 is a promising intervention for the prevention of URTI. Vitamin D 3 significantly reduced the risk of laboratory confirmed URTI and may reduce the risk of clinical infections. Trial registration: Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01158560. 
 Title: Vitamin D 3 and gargling for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infections: a randomized controlled trial


Output: True