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".

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Background: Household studies provide opportunities to understand influenza-like-illness (ILI) transmission, but data from (sub)tropical developing countries are scarce. Objective: To determine the viral etiology and epidemiology of ILI in households. Study design: ILI was detected by active case finding amongst a cohort of 263 northern Vietnam households between 2008 and 2013. Health workers collected nose and throat swabs for virus detection by multiplex real-time RT-PCR. Results: ILI was detected at least once in 219 (23.7%) of 945 household members. 271 (62.3%) of 435 nose/throat swabs were positive for at least one of the 15 viruses tested. Six viruses predominated amongst positive swabs: Rhinovirus (28%), Influenza virus (17%), Coronavirus (8%), Enterovirus (5%), Respiratory syncytial virus (3%), Metapneumovirus virus (2.5%) and Parainfluenza virus 3 (1.8%). There was no clear seasonality, but 78% of episodes occurred in Winter/Spring for Influenza compared to 32% for Rhinovirus. Participants, on average, suffered 0.49 ILI, and 0.29 virus-positive ILI episodes, with no significant effects of gender, age, or household size. In contrast to US and Australian community studies, the frequency of ILI decreased as the number of household members aged below 5 years increased (p = 0.006). Conclusion: The findings indicate the need for tailored ILI control strategies, and for better understanding of how local childcare practices and seasonality may influence transmission and the role of children.
Title: Epidemiology and etiology of influenza-like-illness in households in Vietnam; it's not all about the kids!

Output: True

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Newton's Principia introduces four rules of reasoning for natural philosophy. Although useful, there is a concern about whether Newton's rules guarantee truth. After redirecting the discussion from truth to validity, I show that these rules are valid insofar as they fulfill Goodman's criteria for inductive rules and Newton's own methodological program of experimental philosophy; provided that cross-checks are used prior to applications of rule 4 and immediately after applications of rule 2 the following activities are pursued: (1) research addressing observations that systematically deviate from theoretical idealizations and (2) applications of theory that safeguard ongoing research from proceeding down a garden path. #
Title: Do Newton's rules of reasoning guarantee truth . . . must they?

Output: False

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: of mild RTIs are viral, recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the published literature showed that in adults, 25% of patients with community-acquired pneumonia was viral. This percentage is higher in children, particularly children under 5, due to the large proportion of cases caused by RSV. In adults, the contributions of identified viral etiologies were 8% for influenza viruses, 6% for rhinoviruses, 3% for coronaviruses, and 2% for RSV. In children under 5 with LRTIs, strong causal associations for RSV, influenza viruses, parainfluenza viruses, and metapneumovirus were found in comparison with healthy controls, and less so for adenoviruses, bocaviruses, and coronaviruses. 7,8
Title: 33 Viral Respiratory Infections
Output: True