In this task, you're given a paragraph from the research paper and your task is to generate a suitable title for the research paper based on the given paper. Under 100 words is a good title length.

[Q]: A novel coronavirus, termed the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), infected humans in Guangdong, China, in November 2002 and the subsequent efficient human-to-human transmissions of this virus caused profound disturbances in over 30 countries worldwide in 2003. Eventually, this epidemic was controlled by isolation and there has been no human infection reported since January 2004. However, research on different aspects of the SARS-CoV is not waning, as it is not known if this virus will re-emerge, especially since its origins and potential reservoir(s) are unresolved. The SARS-CoV genome is nearly 30 kb in length and contains 14 potential open reading frames (ORFs). Some of these ORFs encode for genes that are homologous to proteins found in all known coronaviruses, namely the replicase genes (ORFs 1a and 1b) and the four structural proteins: nucleocapsid, spike, membrane and envelope, and these proteins are expected to be essential for the replication of the virus. The remaining eight ORFs encodes for accessory proteins, varying in length from 39 to 274 amino acids, which are unique to SARS-CoV. This review will summarize the expeditious research on these accessory viral proteins in three major areas: (i) the detection of antibodies against accessory proteins in the serum of infected patients, (ii) the expression, processing and cellular localization of the accessory proteins, and (iii) the effects of the accessory proteins on cellular functions. These in-depth molecular and biochemical characterizations of the SARS-CoV accessory proteins, which have no homologues in other coronaviruses, may offer clues as to why the SARS-CoV causes such a severe and rapid attack in humans, while other coronaviruses that infect humans seem to be more forgiving.
[A]: Understanding the accessory viral proteins unique to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus

[Q]: Middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus International travel Pilgrims a b s t r a c t Objective: We aimed to evaluate the level of knowledge of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) among Hajj pilgrims before and after an education health programme during international vaccine consultations in France. Methods: Consecutive adults (>18 years old) who attended for pre-Hajj meningococcal vaccination were eligible to complete an anonymous questionnaire with closed answers to evaluate their level of knowledge about MERS-CoV. To evaluate the effectiveness of the information given during the consultation, the same questionnaire was completed by the Hajj pilgrim before and after the consultation, where the information about MERS-CoV was provided. Results: Among 82 Hajj pilgrim adults enrolled in the study, less than 25% were aware of the routes of transmission, symptoms and preventive behaviours to adopt abroad or in case of fever. Pilgrims had a higher rate of correct responses on each question at the time they completed the second questionnaire, as compared with the first, with 11 of 13 questions answered significantly better after delivery of educational information about MERS-CoV. However, although the rate of correct answers to the questions about routes of transmission, symptoms, preventive behaviours to adopt in case of fever and time delay between return and potential MERS-CoV occurrence increased significantly after receiving the information, the rates remained below 50%. Conclusion: Information given during travel consultations significantly increases the general level of knowledge, but not enough to achieve epidemic control.
[A]: Effectiveness of an education health programme about Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus tested during travel consultations Public Health

[Q]: Background: The amount of information available about millions of different subjects is growing every day. This has led to the birth of new search tools specialized in different domains, because classical information retrieval models have trouble dealing with the special characteristics of some of these domains. Evidence-based Medicine is a case of a complex domain where classical information retrieval models can help search engines retrieve documents by considering the presence or absence of terms, but these must be complemented with other specific strategies which allow retrieving and ranking documents including the best current evidence and methodological quality. Objective: The goal is to present a ranking algorithm able to select the best documents for clinicians considering aspects related to the relevance and the quality of said documents. Methods: In order to assess the effectiveness of this proposal, an experimental methodology has been followed by using Medline as a data set and the Cochrane Library as a gold standard. Results: Applying the evaluation methodology proposed, and after submitting 40 queries on the platform developed, the MAP (Mean Average Precision) obtained was 20.26%. Conclusions: Successful results have been achieved with the experiments, improving on other studies, but under different and even more complex circumstances. with real users [ 5 , 6 ]; nevertheless, there are studies that question whether technology applied to clinical information retrieval is useful and cast doubt on the ability of scientists to search appropriately [7] . Hence, it is necessary to develop algorithms to improve the quality of search results, especially as finding the best studies may suppose a better treatment for patients [8] . An example may be the algorithm proposed in [9] which models quality criteria through fuzzy prototypes in order to filter Personal Health Records (PHRs). This is only one example of documents in Medicine, but there are many other types of documents (review articles, original studies, case reports, etc.) that are important, especially in Evidence-based Medicine (EBM). According to [10] , EBM is "the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients." Therefore, EBM consists of integrating the best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. It is based on two main principles, the application of the best available evidence from the scientific method to medical decision making [11] and the assessment of the quality of evidence of the advantages and disadvantages of treatments [12] .
[A]:
A relevance and quality-based ranking algorithm applied to evidence-base d me dicine