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.
One example is below.
Q: 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.
A: False
Rationale: Output is appropriate for the given abstract because it is not structured.
Q: BACKGROUND Since 2004, several reported transfusion transmissions of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) in the United Kingdom have reawakened concerns about the possible risk of similar transmissions of nonvariant or classic forms of CJD.    STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Patients with a CJD diagnosis and a history of donating blood were reported to the study coordinator. Through review of blood distribution and hospital records, the recipients of blood components from these donors were identified. We then determined each recipient's vital status and, if deceased, the cause(s) of death identified by matching the recipient's personal identifiers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Death Index database. We conducted such searches after recipients were enrolled in this study and annually thereafter for those who remained alive.   
 RESULTS The study included a total of 36 blood donors who subsequently developed CJD and 436 recipients. Through 2006, 91 of these recipients were still alive, 329 were deceased, and 16 were lost to follow-up. After transfusion, these three groups had survived a total of 2096.0 person-years. A total of 144 recipients survived 5 years or longer after transfusion and 68 of them had received blood donated 60 or fewer months before the onset of CJD in the donor. We identified no recipient with CJD.   
 CONCLUSIONS The current results of this large, ongoing lookback study show no evidence of transfusion transmission of CJD. They reinforce the conclusion that the risk, if any, of transfusion transmission of prion disease by CJD donors is significantly lower than the comparable risk of such transmission by vCJD donors.
A:
True