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.

[Q]: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the most common sexually transmitted disease worldwide. HPVs are oncogenic small double-stranded DNA viruses that are the primary causal agent of cervical cancer and other types of cancers, including in the anus, oropharynx, vagina, vulva, and penis. Prophylactic vaccination against HPV is an attractive strategy for preventing cervical cancer and some other types of cancers. However, there are few safe and effective vaccines against HPV infections. Current first-generation commercial HPV vaccines are expensive to produce and deliver. The goal of this study was to develop an alternate potent HPV recombinant L1-based vaccines by producing HPV virus-like particles into a vaccine that is currently used worldwide. Live attenuated measles virus (MV) vaccines have a well-established safety and efficacy record, and recombinant MV (rMV) produced by reverse genetics may be useful for generating candidate HPV vaccines to meet the needs of the developing world. We studied in non-human primate rMV-vectored HPV vaccine in parallel with a classical alum adjuvant recombinant HPV16L1 and 18L1 protein vaccine produced in Pichia pastoris. A combined prime-boost approach using both vaccines was evaluated, as well as immune interference due to pre-existing immunity against the MV. The humoral immune response induced by the MV, Pichia-expressed vaccine, and their combination as priming and boosting approaches was found to elicit HPV16L1 and 18L1 specific total IgG and neutralizing antibody titres. Pre-existing antibodies against measles did not prevent the immune response against HPV16L1 and 18L1.
[A]: Immunogenicity of next-generation HPV vaccines in non-human primates: Measles-vectored HPV vaccine versus Pichia pastoris recombinant protein vaccine


[Q]: This paper attempts to understand optimal ventilation rates at the national level across 26 European countries and to contrast the benefits of optimizing ventilation with filtration of outdoor air pollution and control of indoor sources. This is an important topic given the key role of the housing sector in tackling both air pollution and climate change. Although the methods used are relatively simplistic, they are appropriate for analyses performed at the scale presented in the paper. The findings and conclusions are well supported by the results. I would therefore support publication. However, I believe the manuscript would benefit from a stronger statement of the aims of the work and some clarifications regarding the methods (see below). My main concern relates to the assumption made by the authors that indoor-generated PM2.5 is equally as harmful to health as outdoor-generated PM2.5. There is little evidence to support this (though it is quite a commonly made assumption). I would like to see some form of sensitivity analysis in relation to this assumption, since it may have an impact on the final results (though probably not on the ultimate conclusions). More detailed comments can be found below. I consider the suggested revisions to be relatively minor. 1. Is the question posed original, important and well defined? The research question posed by the paper is important and I believe the methods used are appropriate to answer it. However, the aims of the paper are not currently well stated (in both the main text and in the abstract). The main statement of the aims comes towards the end of page 5, which states "This work aims to summarize the current understanding of the sources of health risks in indoor environments and their relationship to ventilation requirements". This doesn't really capture what the authors have actually done. There is a slightly better statement of the aims hidden in the Methods (top of page 7) but even this doesn't quite feel sufficient. 2. Are the data sound and well controlled? Yes, although the source of some of the input data can be made clearer in the text, especially in relation to Table 2 (see below) . 3. Is the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) well balanced and supported by the data? Yes. 4. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to allow others to evaluate and/or replicate the work? The methods are generally well described. However, I have a few specific issues (see the additional comments below). The methods are based on relatively simplistic tools (both the mass-balance exposure model and the risk/health impact model). However, I think they are appropriate for the type of analysis presented in the paper. My main concern relates to the assumption of equal health risk associated with both outdoor-and indoor-generated PM2.5. The authors discuss this briefly in the Discussion section but this assumption is highly uncertain since almost all of the published epidemiology is based on outdoor PM2.5. The paper would benefit from greater emphasis on the sensitivity of the results to this assumption. Perhaps, the analysis (or part of it) could be repeated without the effects of indoorgenerated PM2.5 or with a reduced exposure-response coefficient? 6. Can the writing, organization, tables and figures be improved? Although the manuscript is generally well written, there are reoccurring problems, most importantly missing articles throughout the paper (e.g. a, the). For instance, in the abstract, "Based on measurements of the European Environment Agency (EEA),…" and "A framework for developing European health-based ventilation guidelines…" would be preferable. I realise that English is not the authors' first language (and, again, I should stress that most of the language used is very good). However, I think the paper would benefit from a thorough edit by a native English speaker. Also, the figures appear to be quite pixelated and may not be in an appropriate format for publication. 7. When revisions are requested. No preference. 8. Are there any ethical or competing interests issues you would like to raise? None. • I believe the abstract would benefit from a little editing. At present, the Background section feels unnecessarily long and there isn't enough detail in either the Methods or Results sections. The methods used for the health impact calculations aren't mentioned at all, despite being key to the paper. At the moment, I don't feel the main results are clearly stated in the abstract. • The paper refers throughout to "optimization". I think a mathematician might object to the use of the term because the method doesn't actually use a formal optimization process. I don't think this is too much of a problem but I do think a clear statement of what the authors mean by optimization would be helpful (e.g. in the Methods). As I understand it, the "optimal" ventilation rate is just taken to be the one for which the health burden is smallest.
[A]: Reducing burden of disease from residential indoor air exposures in Europe (HEALTHVENT project) Reducing burden of disease from residential indoor air exposures in Europe (HEALTHVENT project)


[Q]: Background: Disaster is a serious public health issue. Health professionals and community residents are main players in disaster responses but their knowledge levels of disaster medicine are not readily available. This study aimed to evaluate knowledge levels and training needs of disaster medicine among potential disaster responders and presented a necessity to popularize disaster medicine education. Methods: A self-reporting questionnaire survey on knowledge level and training needs of disaster medicine was conducted in Shanghai, China, in 2012. A total of randomly selected 547 health professionals, 456 medical students, and 1,526 local residents provided intact information. The total response rate was 93.7%. Results: Overall, 1.3% of these participants have received systematic disaster medicine training. News media (87.1%) was the most common channel to acquire disaster medicine knowledge. Although health professionals were more knowledgeable than community residents, their knowledge structure of disaster medicine was not intact. Medical teachers were more knowledgeable than medical practitioners and health administrators (p = 0.002). Clinicians performed better than public health physicians (p,0.001), whereas public health students performed better than clinical medical students (p,0.001). In community residents, education background significantly affected the knowledge level on disaster medicine (p,0.001). Training needs of disaster medicine were generally high among the surveyed. 'Lecture' and 'practical training' were preferred teaching methods. The selected key and interested contents on disaster medicine training were similar between health professionals and medical students, while the priorities chosen by local residents were quite different from health professionals and medical students (p,0.001). Conclusions: Traditional clinical-oriented medical education might lead to a huge gap between the knowledge level on disaster medicine and the current needs of disaster preparedness. Continuing medical education and public education plans on disaster medicine via media should be practice-oriented, and selectively applied to different populations and take the knowledge levels and training needs into consideration.
[A]:
Knowledge Levels and Training Needs of Disaster Medicine among Health Professionals, Medical Students, and Local Residents in Shanghai, China