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.

Let me give you an 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.
The answer to this example can be: False
Here is why: Output is appropriate for the given abstract because it is not structured.

OK. solve this:
BACKGROUND Avian influenza (AI) caused by H7 AI viruses (AIVs) of both low pathogenicity (LP) and high pathogenicity (HP) are notifiable poultry diseases.
OBJECTIVES Design and validate two RealTime reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reactions (RRT PCRs) for Eurasian H7 AIV detection and pathotyping.
METHODS The H7 RRT PCRs amplified within the (i) HA2 and (ii) cleavage site CS regions of the haemagglutinin gene. Both were validated against 65 H7 AIVs, 57 non-H7 AIVs and 259 poultry swabs in comparison to M gene (AI generic) RRT PCR and virus isolation (VI). An additional 38 swabs and 20 tissue specimens extended validation against M gene RRT PCR.
RESULTS Both H7 RRT PCRs amplified all 61 Eurasian lineage H7 AIVs and none of 57 non-H7 AIVs. A total of 297 poultry swabs were used to determine diagnostic sensitivity and specificity relative to M gene RRT PCR, sensitivity was 95.4% and 64.6% for the HA2 and CS RRT PCRs respectively, and specificity 97.9% and 99.6% respectively. The H7 HA2 RRT PCR was more sensitive than VI. This was emphasized by analysis of 37 swabs from turkeys infected experimentally with HPAI H7N1 virus sampled at 24 hours post-inoculation and LPAI H7N1 chicken infections sampled at 40-64 hours. Although less sensitive, usefulness of the H7 CS RRT PCR was confirmed by the correct molecular pathotyping for all 61 Eurasian lineage H7 AIVs tested.
CONCLUSIONS The high sensitivity of H7 HA2 RRT PCR confirms its suitability for use in poultry surveillance and disease diagnosis. H7 CS RRT PCR provides an opportunity for rapid pathotyping of H7 AIVs.
Answer:
True