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".

Paragraph: Background: To our knowledge, no studies to date demonstrate potential spread of microbes during actual emergency medical service (EMS) activities. Our study introduces a novel approach to identification of contributors to EMS environment contamination and development of infection control strategies, using a bacteriophage surrogate for pathogenic organisms. Methods: Bacteriophage FX174 was used to trace cross-contamination and evaluate current disinfection practices and a hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ) wipe intervention within emergency response vehicles. Prior to EMS calls, 2 surfaces were seeded with FX174. On call completion, EMS vehicle and equipment surfaces were sampled before decontamination, after decontamination per current practices, and after implementation of the intervention. Results: Current decontamination practices did not significantly reduce viral loads on surfaces (P .3113), but H 2 O 2 wipe intervention did (P .0065). Bacteriophage spread to 56% (27/48) of sites and was reduced to 54% (26/48) and 40% (19/48) with current decontamination practices and intervention practices, respectively. Conclusion: Results suggest firefighters' hands were the main vehicles of microbial transfer. Current practices were not consistently applied or standardized and minimally reduced prevalence and quantity of microbial contamination on EMS surfaces. Although use of a consistent protocol of H 2 O 2 wipes significantly reduced percent prevalence and concentration of viruses, training and promotion of surface disinfection should be provided.
Title: Spread of infectious microbes during emergency medical response
True

Paragraph: G-quadruplexes are non-canonical nucleic acid structures that control transcription, replication, and recombination in organisms. G-quadruplexes are present in eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and viruses. In the latter, mounting evidence indicates their key biological activity. Since data on viruses are scattered, we here present a comprehensive analysis of putative G-quadruplexes in the genome of all known viruses that can infect humans. We show that the presence, distribution, and location of G-quadruplexes are features characteristic of each virus class and family. Our statistical analysis proves that their presence within the viral genome is orderly arranged, as indicated by the possibility to correctly assign up to two-thirds of viruses to their exact class based on the G-quadruplex classification. For each virus we provide: i) the list of all G-quadruplexes formed by GG-, GGG-and GGGG-islands present in the genome (positive and negative strands), ii) their position in the viral genome along with the known function of that region, iii) the degree of conservation among strains of each G-quadruplex in its genome context, iv) the statistical significance of G-quadruplex formation. This information is accessible from a database
Title: G-quadruplex forming sequences in the genome of all known human viruses: a comprehensive guide Running title: Presence and conservation of G4s in human viruses
True

Paragraph: The clinical consequences of co-infection with two or more respiratory viruses are poorly understood. We sought to determine if co-infection with pandemic 2009-2010 influenza A H1N1 (pH1N1) and another respiratory virus was associated with worse clinical outcomes. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed of all hospitalized patients with a positive respiratory viral panel (RVP) for two or more viruses within 72 hours of admission at our institution from October 2009 to December 2009. We compared patients infected with one respiratory virus to those with respiratory viral co-infection. We identified 617 inpatients with a positive RVP sample with a single virus and 49 inpatients with a positive RVP sample for two viruses (i.e. co-infection). Co-infected patients were significantly younger, more often had fever/chills, tachypnea, and they more often demonstrated interstitial opacities suggestive of viral pneumonia on the presenting chest radiograph (OR 7.5, 95% CI 3.4-16.5). The likelihood of death, length of stay, and requirement for intensive care unit level of care were similar in both groups, but patients with any respiratory virus co-infection were more likely to experience complications, particularly treatment for a secondary bacterial pneumonia (OR 6.8, 95% CI 3.3-14.2). Patients co-infected with pH1N1 and another respiratory virus were more likely to present with chest radiograph changes suggestive of a viral pneumonia, compared to mono-infection with pH1N1 (OR 16.9, 95% CI 4.5-62.7). By logistic regression using monoinfection with non-PH1N1 viruses as the reference group, co-infection with pH1N1 was the strongest independent predictor of treatment for a secondary bacterial pneumonia (OR 17.8, 95% CI 6.7-47.1). Patients with viral co-infection, particularly with pH1N1, were more likely to have chest radiograph features compatible with a viral pneumonia and complications during their hospital course, particularly treatment for secondary bacterial pneumonia. Despite this, co-infection was not associated with ICU admission.
Title: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with Respiratory Viral Co-Infection during the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic
False