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 Input:
To investigate a cluster of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) cases in a women-only dormitory in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in October 2015, we collected epidemiologic information, nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab samples, and blood samples from 828 residents during November 2015 and December 2015-January 2016. We found confirmed infection for 19 (8 by reverse transcription PCR and 11 by serologic testing). Infection attack rates varied (2.7%-32.3%) by dormitory building. No deaths occurred. Independent risk factors for infection were direct contact with a confirmed case-patient and sharing a room with a confirmed case-patient; a protective factor was having an air conditioner in the bedroom. For 9 women from whom a second serum sample was collected, antibodies remained detectable at titers >1:20 by pseudoparticle neutralization tests (n = 8) and 90% plaque-reduction neutralization tests (n = 2). In closed high-contact settings, MERS coronavirus was highly infectious and pathogenicity was relatively low.

Ex Output:
EID podcast Tuberculosis Surveillance and Control in Puerto Rico

Ex Input:
We evaluated the acceptability of an additional ad hoc influenza vaccination among the health care professionals following seasons with significant antigenic drift. Self-administered, anonymous surveys were performed by hard copy questionnaires in public hospitals, and by an on-line platform available to all healthcare professionals, from April 1st to May 31st, 2015. A total of 1290 healthcare professionals completed the questionnaires, including doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals working in both the public and private systems. Only 31.8% of participating respondents expressed an intention to receive the additional vaccine, despite that the majority of them agreed or strongly agreed that it would bring benefit to the community (88.9%), save lives (86.7%), reduce medical expenses (76.3%), satisfy public expectation (82.8%), and increase awareness of vaccination (86.1%). However, a significant proportion expressed concern that the vaccine could disturb the normal immunization schedule (45.5%); felt uncertain what to do in the next vaccination round (66.0%); perceived that the summer peak might not occur (48.2%); and believed that the summer peak might not be of the same virus (83.5%). Furthermore, 27.8% of all respondents expected that the additional vaccination could weaken the efficacy of previous vaccinations; 51.3% was concerned about side effects; and 61.3% estimated that there would be a low uptake rate. If the supply of vaccine was limited, higher priority groups were considered to include the elderly aged !65 years with chronic medical conditions (89.2%), the elderly living in residential care homes (87.4%), and longstay residents of institutions for the disabled (80.7%). The strongest factors associated with accepting the additional vaccine included immunization with influenza vaccines in the past 3 years, higher perceived risk of contracting influenza, and higher perceived severity of the disease impact. The acceptability to an additional ad hoc influenza vaccination was low among healthcare professionals. This could have a negative impact on such additional vaccination campaigns since healthcare professionals are a key driver for vaccine acceptance. The discordance in perceived risk and acceptance of vaccination regarding self versus public deserves further evaluation. Abbreviations: AOR = adjusted odds ratios, WHO = world health organization. Editor: Barry Margulies. A x 2 test or Fisher exact tests for variables with any cell <5. Values are numbers (percentages) of respondents unless stated otherwise. The values in bold represented those with P < 0.10, which were selected as variables in the multivariate regression analysis.

Ex Output:
Ad Hoc Influenza Vaccination During Years of Significant Antigenic Drift in a Tropical City With 2 Seasonal Peaks A Cross-Sectional Survey Among Health Care Practitioners

Ex Input:
Several studies have shown a reduced efficacy of influenza vaccines in the elderly compared to young adults. In this study, we evaluated the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of a commercially available inactivated influenza vaccine (Fluzone 1 ) in young adult and aged mice. C57/BL6 mice were administered a single or double immunization of Fluzone 1 with or without CpG and challenged intranasally with H1N1 A/California/09 virus. A double immunization of Fluzone 1 adjuvanted with CpG elicited the highest level of protection in young adult mice which was associated with increases in influenza specific IgG, elevated HAI titres, reduced viral titres and lung inflammation. In contrast, the vaccine schedule which provided fully protective immunity in young adult mice conferred limited protection in aged mice. Antigen presenting cells from aged mice were found to be less responsive to in vitro stimulation by Fluzone and CpG which may partially explain this result. Our data are supportive of studies that have shown limited effectiveness of influenza vaccines in the elderly and provide important information relevant to the design of more immunogenic vaccines in this age group.

Ex Output:
CpG Improves Influenza Vaccine Efficacy in Young Adult but Not Aged Mice