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".
--------
Question: Paragraph: Understanding the causes of infectious disease to facilitate better control requires observational and experimental studies. Often these must be conducted at many scales such as at the molecular, cellular, organism, and population level. Studies need to consider both intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting the pathogen/host interaction. They also require a combination of study methods covered by disciplines such as pathology, epidemiology, microbiology, and ecology. Therefore, it is important that disciplines work together when designing and conducting studies. Finally, we need to integrate and interpret data across levels and disciplines to better formulate control strategies. This requires another group of specialists with broad crossdisciplinary training in epidemiology and an ability to readily work with others.
Title: Determining Causality and Controlling Disease is Based on Collaborative Research involving Multidisciplinary Approaches

Answer: False

Question: Paragraph: Background: On the 30th September 2009, the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccine was made available to adults and children aged 10 years and over, in Australia. Acceptance of a novel vaccine is influenced by perceptions of risk including risk of infection, risk of death or severe illness and risk of serious vaccine side-effects. We surveyed a sample of residents from Sydney, Australia to ascertain their risk perception, attitudes towards the pandemic and willingness to accept the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza vaccine. We sampled residents using a cross-sectional intercept design during the WHO Phase 6. Members of the public were approached in shopping and pedestrian malls to undertake the survey during September and October 2009. The survey measured perceived risk, seriousness of disease, recent behavioural changes, likely acceptance of the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccine and issues relating to uptake and perceived safety.
Title: Why do I need it? I am not at risk! Public perceptions towards the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccine

Answer: True

Question: Paragraph: The objectives of this experiment were to evaluate the effects of alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters (AGP), two group sizes, and their interaction on nursery pig performance to serve as a model for future AGP alternative studies. A 41-d experiment was conducted in a commercial weanto-finish barn; 1,300 piglets weaned at 21 d of age (weaned 2 or 4 d prior to experiment; 6.14 0.18 kg BW; PIC 1050 sows and multiple sire lines) were blocked by sire, sex, and weaning date, then assigned to eight treatments: four dietary treatments each evaluated across two group sizes. The four dietary treatments were: negative control (NC), positive control (PC; NC + in-feed antibiotics), zinc oxide plus a dietary acidifier (blend of fumaric, citric, lactic, and phosphoric acid) (ZA; NC + ZnO + acid), and a Bacillus-based direct-fed-microbial (DFM) plus resistant potato starch (RS) (DR; NC + DFM + RS). The two group sizes were 31 or 11 pigs/pen; floor space was modified so area/pig was equal between the group sizes (0.42 m 2 /pig). There were 7 pens/diet with 11 pigs/pen and 8 pens/diet with 31 pigs/pen. Data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design with pen as the experimental unit. Diagnostic assessment of oral fluids, serum, and tissue samples was used to characterize health status. Pigs experienced natural challenges of acute diarrhea and septicemia in week 1 and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) in weeks 4-6. There was a significant interaction between diet and group size for ADG (P = 0.012). PC increased ADG in large and small groups (P < 0.05) and ZA increased ADG only in large groups (P < 0.05). Small groups had improved ADG compared to large groups when fed NC or DR diets (P < 0.05). Similarly, PC increased ADFI (P < 0.05). Compared to NC, ZA improved ADFI in large groups only (P < 0.05; diet group size: P = 0.015). Pigs fed PC had greater G:F than NC (P < 0.05), and small groups had greater G:F than large groups (P < 0.05). There was no effect of ZA or DR on G:F. Pigs fed PC required fewer individual medical treatments than NC and pigs fed ZA were intermediate (P = 0.024). More pigs were removed from large than small groups (P = 0.049), and there was no effect of diet on removals (P > 0.10). In conclusion, careful study design, protocol implementation, sample collection, and recording of important information allowed us to characterize the health status of this group of pigs and determine treatment effects on growth performance and morbidity.
Title: The effects of group size and subtherapeutic antibiotic alternatives on growth performance and morbidity of nursery pigs: a model for feed additive evaluation 1

Answer:
True