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 Input:
Paragraph: The canine infectious respiratory disease complex (CIRDC) is an endemic worldwide syndrome involving multiple viral and bacterial pathogens. Traditionally, Bordetella bronchiseptica (Bb), canine adenovirus type 2 (CAV-2), canine distemper virus (CDV), canine herpesvirus (CHV) and canine parainfluenza virus (CPiV) were considered the major causative agents. Lately, new pathogens have been implicated in the development of CIRDC, namely canine influenza virus (CIV), canine respiratory coronavirus (CRCoV), canine pneumovirus (CnPnV), Mycoplasma cynos and Streptococcus equi subspecies zooepidemicus. To better understand the role of the different pathogens in the development of CIRDC and their epidemiological relevance in Europe, prevalence data were collected from peerreviewed publications and summarized. Evidence of exposure to Bb is frequently found in healthy and diseased dogs and client-owned dogs are as likely to be infected as kennelled dogs. Co-infections with viral pathogens are common. The findings confirm that Bb is an important cause of CIRDC in Europe. CAV-2 and CDV recovery rates from healthy and diseased dogs are low and the most likely explanation for this is control through vaccination. Seroconversion to CHV can be demonstrated following CIRDC outbreaks and CHV has been detected in the lower respiratory tract of diseased dogs. There is some evidence that CHV is not a primary cause of CIRDC, but opportunistically re-activates at the time of infection and exacerbates the disease. The currently available data suggest that CIV is, at present, neither a prevalent nor a significant pathogen in Europe. CPiV remains an important pathogen in CIRDC and facilitates co-infection with other viral and bacterial pathogens. CnPnV and CRCoV are important new elements in the aetiology of CIRDC and spread particularly well in multi-dog establishments. M. cynos is common in Europe and is more likely to occur in younger and kennelled dogs. This organism is frequently found together with other CIRDC pathogens and is significantly associated with more severe respiratory signs. S. zooepidemicus infection is not common and appears to be a particular problem in kennels. Protective immunity against respiratory diseases is rarely complete, and generally only a reduction in clinical signs and excretion of pathogen can be achieved through vaccination. However, even vaccines that only reduce and do not prevent infection carry epidemiological advantages. They reduce spread, increase herd immunity and decrease usage of antimicrobials. Recommending vaccination of dogs against pathogens of CIRDC will directly provide epidemiological advantages to the population and the individual dog.
Title: Aetiology of Canine Infectious Respiratory Disease Complex and Prevalence of its Pathogens in Europe-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). ScienceDirect

Ex Output:
False

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus MERS Healthcare-associated outbreaks S U M M A R Y Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is capable of causing acute respiratory illness. Laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV cases may be asymptomatic, have mild disease, or have a life-threatening infection with a high case fatality rate. There are three patterns of transmission: sporadic community cases from presumed non-human exposure, family clusters arising from contact with an infected family index case, and healthcareacquired infections among patients and from patients to healthcare workers. Healthcareacquired MERS infection has become a well-known characteristic of the disease and a leading means of spread. The main factors contributing to healthcare-associated outbreaks include delayed recognition, inadequate infection control measures, inadequate triaging and isolation of suspected MERS or other respiratory illness patients, crowding, and patients remaining in the emergency department for many days. A review of the literature suggests that effective control of hospital outbreaks was accomplished in most instances by the application of proper infection control procedures. Prompt recognition, isolation and management of suspected cases are key factors for prevention of the spread of MERS. Repeated assessments of infection control and monitoring of corrective measures contribute to changing the course of an outbreak. Limiting the number of contacts and hospital visits are also important factors to decrease the spread of infection.
Title: Healthcare-associated infections: the hallmark of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus with review of the literature

Ex Output:
True

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Background: Highly Infectious Diseases (HIDs) are (i) easily transmissible form person to person; (ii) cause a life-threatening illness with no or few treatment options; and (iii) pose a threat for both personnel and the public. Hence, even suspected HID cases should be managed in specialised facilities minimizing infection risks but allowing state-of-the-art critical care. Consensus statements on the operational management of isolation facilities have been published recently. The study presented was set up to compare the operational management, resources, and technical equipment among European isolation facilities. Due to differences in geography, population density, and national response plans it was hypothesized that adherence to recommendations will vary. Methods and Findings: Until mid of 2010 the European Network for Highly Infectious Diseases conducted a cross-sectional analysis of isolation facilities in Europe, recruiting 48 isolation facilities in 16 countries. Three checklists were disseminated, assessing 44 items and 148 specific questions. The median feedback rate for specific questions was 97.9% (n = 47/48) (range: n = 7/48 (14.6%) to n = 48/48 (100%). Although all facilities enrolled were nominated specialised facilities' serving countries or regions, their design, equipment and personnel management varied. Eighteen facilities fulfilled the definition of a High Level Isolation Unit'. In contrast, 24 facilities could not operate independently from their co-located hospital, and five could not ensure access to equipment essential for infection control. Data presented are not representative for the EU in general, as only 16/27 (59.3%) of all Member States agreed to participate. Another limitation of this study is the time elapsed between data collection and publication; e.g. in Germany one additional facility opened in the meantime. Conclusion: There are disparities both within and between European countries regarding the design and equipment of isolation facilities. With regard to the International Health Regulations, terminology, capacities and equipment should be standardised.
Title: Isolation Facilities for Highly Infectious Diseases in Europe -A Cross-Sectional Analysis in 16 Countries

Ex Output:
True