Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
In this task, you are given an abstract of article. Your task is to generate label "True" if abstract is structured, otherwise generate "False". A structured abstract is composed of a topic sentence (or key sentence), relevant supporting sentences, and a closing (or transition) sentence. This structure is key to keeping your abstract focused on the main idea and creating a clear and concise image.
Example: RanBP type proteins have been reported to increase the catalytic efficiency of the RanGAP-mediated GTPase reaction on Ran. Since the structure of the Ran-RanBP1-RanGAP complex showed RanBP1 to be located away from the active site, we reinvestigated the reaction using fluorescence spectroscopy under pre-steady-state conditions. We can show that RanBP1 indeed does not influence the rate-limiting step of the reaction, which is the cleavage of GTP and/or the release of product P(i). It does, however, influence the dynamics of the Ran-RanGAP interaction, its most dramatic effect being the 20-fold stimulation of the already very fast association reaction such that it is under diffusion control (4.5 x 10(8) M(-1) s(-1)). Having established a valuable kinetic system for the interaction analysis, we also found, in contrast to previous findings, that the highly conserved acidic C-terminal end of RanGAP is not required for the switch-off reaction. Rather, genetic experiments in Saccharomyces cerevisiae demonstrate a profound effect of the acidic tail on microtubule organization during mitosis. We propose that the acidic tail of RanGAP is required for a process during mitosis.
Output: False
Output is appropriate for the given abstract because it is not structured.

New input case for you: CONTEXT The appropriate therapy for men with clinically localized prostate cancer is uncertain. A recent study suggested an increasing prostate cancer mortality rate for men who are alive more than 15 years following diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE To estimate 20-year survival based on a competing risk analysis of men who were diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer and treated with observation or androgen withdrawal therapy alone, stratified by age at diagnosis and histological findings.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS A retrospective population-based cohort study using Connecticut Tumor Registry data supplemented by hospital record and histology review of 767 men aged 55 to 74 years with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between January 1, 1971, and December 31, 1984. Patients were treated with either observation or immediate or delayed androgen withdrawal therapy, with a median observation of 24 years.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Probability of mortality from prostate cancer or other competing medical conditions, given a patient's age at diagnosis and tumor grade.
RESULTS The prostate cancer mortality rate was 33 per 1000 person-years during the first 15 years of follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI], 28-38) and 18 per 1000 person-years after 15 years of follow-up (95% CI, 10-29). The mortality rates for these 2 follow-up periods were not statistically different, after adjusting for differences in tumor histology (rate ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.9). Men with low-grade prostate cancers have a minimal risk of dying from prostate cancer during 20 years of follow-up (Gleason score of 2-4, 6 deaths per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 2-11). Men with high-grade prostate cancers have a high probability of dying from prostate cancer within 10 years of diagnosis (Gleason score of 8-10, 121 deaths per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 90-156). Men with Gleason score of 5 or 6 tumors have an intermediate risk of prostate cancer death.
CONCLUSION The annual mortality rate from prostate cancer appears to remain stable after 15 years from diagnosis, which does not support aggressive treatment for localized low-grade prostate cancer.
Output:
True