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.
Example solution: False
Example explanation: Output is appropriate for the given abstract because it is not structured.

Problem: BACKGROUND In the studies of left ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD), enalapril reduced mortality in patients with symptomatic but not asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction during the trial. We did a 12-year follow-up of SOLVD to establish if the mortality reduction with enalapril among patients with heart failure was sustained, and whether a subsequent reduction in mortality would emerge among those with asymptomatic ventricular dysfunction.
METHODS Of the 6797 patients previously enrolled in the SOLVD prevention and treatment trials, we ascertained the subsequent vital status of 5165 individuals who were alive when the trials had been completed. Follow-up was done through direct contacts in Belgium and linkages with national death registries and federal beneficiary or historic tax summary files in the USA and Canada.
FINDINGS Follow-up was 99.8% (6784/6797) complete. In the prevention trial, 50.9% (1074/2111) of the enalapril group had died compared with 56.4% (1195/2117) of the placebo group (generalised Wilcoxon p=0.001). In the treatment trial, 79.8% (1025/1285) of the enalapril group had died compared with 80.8% (1038/1284) of the placebo group (generalised Wilcoxon p=0.01). The reductions in cardiac deaths were significant and similar in both trials. When data for the prevention and treatment trials were combined, the hazard ratio for death was 0.90 for the enalapril group compared with the placebo group (95% CI 0.84-0.95, generalised Wilcoxon p=0.0003). Enalapril extended median survival by 9.4 months in the combined trials (95% CI 2.8-16.5, p=0.004).
INTERPRETATION Treatment with enalapril for 3-4 years led to a sustained improvement in survival beyond the original trial period in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, with an important increase in life expectancy.
Solution: True