TASK DEFINITION: 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".
PROBLEM: Paragraph: Research on respiratory protection against biologic agents is important to address major concerns such as occupational safety and terrorist attack. This review describes the literature on respiratory protection against bioaerosols and identifies research gaps. Respiratory protection is a complex field involving a number of factors, such as the efficiency of respirator filter material; facepiece fitting; and maintenance, storage, and reuse of respirators. Several studies used nonpathogenic microorganisms having physical characteristics similar to that of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to analyze microbial penetration through respirators. Some studies showed that high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) and N95 filters provided a higher level of protection than dust/mist (DM) and dust/mist/fume (DMF) filters. Flow rate and relative humidity appear to alter the level of penetration of microorganisms through respirator filters. The relationship between microbial penetration through respirator filters and the aerodynamic diameter, length, or other physical characteristics of microorganisms remains controversial. Whether reaerosolization of bioaerosol particles should be a concern is unclear, given the fact that one study has demonstrated significant reaerosolization of 1-to 5-mm particles loaded onto respirator filters. Respirator maintenance, storage, and decontamination are important factors to be considered when reusing respirators. The respiratory protection against biologic warfare agents such as anthrax in military and civilian situations is described. (Am J Infect Control 2004;32:345-54.)
Title: Respiratory protection against bioaerosols: Literature review and research needs

SOLUTION: False

PROBLEM: Paragraph: In the era of the "sickest first" policy, patients with very high model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores have been increasingly admitted to the intensive care unit with the expectation that they will receive a liver transplant (LT) in the absence of improvement on supportive therapies. Such patients are often admitted in a context of acute-on-chronic liver failure with extrahepatic failures. Sequential assessment of scores or classification based on organ failures within the first days after admission help to stratify the risk of mortality in this population. Although the prognosis of severely ill cirrhotic patients has recently improved, transplant-free mortality remains high. LT is still the only curative treatment in this population. Yet, the increased relative scarcity of graft resource must be considered alongside the increased risk of losing a graft in the initial postoperative period when performing LT in "too sick to transplant" patients. Variables associated with poor immediate post-LT outcomes have been identified in large studies. Despite this, the performance of scores based on these variables is still insufficient. Consideration of a patient's comorbidities and frailty is an appealing predictive approach in this population that has proven of great value in many other diseases. So far, local expertise remains the last safeguard to LT. Using this expertise, data are accumulating on favourable post-LT outcomes in very high MELD populations, particularly when LT is performed in a situation of stabilization/improvement of organ failures in selected candidates. The absence of "definitive" contraindications and the control of "dynamic" contraindications allow a "transplantation window" to be defined. This window must be identified swiftly after admission given the poor short-term survival of patients with very high MELD scores. In the absence of any prospect of LT, withdrawal of care could be discussed to ensure respect of patient life, dignity and wishes.
Title: Approaches for patients with very high MELD scores

SOLUTION: False

PROBLEM: Paragraph: 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.
Title: 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

SOLUTION:
True