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".

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Background: Human papillomavirus 16 (HPV16) is a high-risk DNA tumour virus, which is a major causative agent of cervical cancer. Cellular transformation is associated with deregulated expression of the E6 and E7 oncogenes. E7 has been shown to bind a number of cellular proteins, including the cell cycle control protein pRb. In this study, RNA aptamers (small, singlestranded oligonucleotides selected for high-affinity binding) to HPV16 E7 were employed as molecular tools to further investigate these protein-protein interactions. This study is focused on one aptamer (termed A2). Transfection of this molecule into HPV16-transformed cells resulted in inhibition of cell proliferation (shown using real-time cell electronic sensing and MTT assays) due to the induction of apoptosis (as demonstrated by Annexin V/propidium iodide staining). GST-pull down and bead binding assays were used to demonstrate that the binding of A2 required N-terminal residues of E7 known to be involved in interaction with the cell cycle control protein, pRb. Using a similar approach, A2 was shown to disrupt the interaction between E7 and pRb in vitro. Furthermore, transfection of HPV16-transformed cells with A2 appeared to result in the loss of E7 and rise in pRb levels, as observed by immunoblotting. Conclusions/Significance: This paper includes the first characterisation of the effects of an E7 RNA aptamer in a cell line derived from a cervical carcinoma. Transfection of cells with A2 was correlated with the loss of E7 and the induction of apoptosis. Aptamers specific for a number of cellular and viral proteins have been documented previously; one aptamer (Macugen) is approved for clinical use and several others are in clinical trials. In addition to its role as a molecular tool, A2 could have further applications in the future. 
 Title: An RNA Aptamer Provides a Novel Approach for the Induction of Apoptosis by Targeting the HPV16 E7 Oncoprotein
[EX A]: True

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Air cleaning techniques have been applied worldwide with the goal of improving indoor air quality. The effectiveness of applying these techniques varies widely, and pollutant removal efficiency is usually determined in controlled laboratory environments which may not be realized in practice. Some air cleaners are largely ineffective, and some produce harmful by-products. To summarize what is known regarding the effectiveness of fan-driven air cleaning technologies, a state-of-the-art review of the scientific literature was undertaken by a multidisciplinary panel of experts from Europe, North America, and Asia with expertise in air cleaning, aerosol science, medicine, chemistry and ventilation. The effects on health were not examined. Over 26,000 articles were identified in major literature databases; 400 were selected as being relevant based on their titles and abstracts by the first two authors, who further reduced the number of articles to 160 based on the full texts. These articles were reviewed by the panel using predefined inclusion criteria during their first meeting. Additions were also made by the panel. Of these, 133 articles were finally selected for detailed review. Each article was assessed independently by two members of the panel and then judged by the entire panel during a consensus meeting. During this process 59 articles were deemed conclusive and their results were used for final reporting at their second meeting. The conclusions are that: (1) None of the reviewed technologies was able to effectively remove all indoor pollutants and many were found to generate undesirable by-products during operation. (2) Particle filtration and sorption of gaseous pollutants were among the most effective air cleaning technologies, but there is insufficient information regarding long-term performance and proper maintenance. (3) The existing data make it difficult to extract information such as Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR), which represents a common benchmark for comparing the performance of different air cleaning technologies. (4) To compare and select suitable indoor air cleaning devices, a labeling system accounting for characteristics such as CADR, energy consumption, volume, harmful by-products, and life span is Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 4329e4343 necessary. For that purpose, a standard test room and condition should be built and studied. (5) Although there is evidence that some air cleaning technologies improve indoor air quality, further research is needed before any of them can be confidently recommended for use in indoor environments. 
 Title: Can commonly-used fan-driven air cleaning technologies improve indoor air quality? A literature review
[EX A]: False

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Objectives: The aim was to describe causative agents and clinical characteristics in adult outpatients with upper airway symptoms during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and to evaluate case definitions that are used in clinical practice. Methods: From August through December 2009, 964 symptomatic adult outpatients were included. RT-PCR was used to detect the following pathogens: influenza A (H1N1) and B, parainfluenza 1e4, adenovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, human rhinovirus, human metapneumovirus, human coronavirus (OC43, 229E, NL63), Chlamydia pneumoniae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Legionella species. The Dutch GHOR, American CDC and WHO, and British HPA case definitions were evaluated. Results: A respiratory pathogen was detected in 41% of tested patient samples; influenza A (H1N1) and human rhinovirus were both detected in 16%. Clinical presentation of influenza cases was significantly more serious when compared to rhinovirus or negative-tested cases. Test characteristics were almost similar for all 4 case definitions, with an average sensitivity of 66%, specificity of 70%, positive predictive value of 34% and negative predictive value of 90%. Conclusions: Influenza A (H1N1) and human rhinovirus were the major pathogens responsible for respiratory disease. The 2009 H1N1 pandemic in Amsterdam followed a mild course. Test characteristics of 4 different clinical case definitions seemed comparable but rather useless. 
 Title: Adult outpatient experience of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic: Clinical course, pathogens, and evaluation of case definitions
[EX A]:
True