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.

Example input: 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.
Example output: False
Example explanation: Output is appropriate for the given abstract because it is not structured.
Q: OBJECTIVE To assess the risks of amputation, blindness, severe kidney failure, hyperglycaemia, and hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes associated with prescribed diabetes drugs, particularly newer agents including gliptins or glitazones (thiazolidinediones).   
 DESIGN Open cohort study in primary care.   
 SETTING 1243 practices contributing data to the QResearch database in England.   
 PARTICIPANTS 469,688 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 25-84 years between 1 April 2007 and 31 January 2015.    EXPOSURES Hypoglycaemic agents (glitazones, gliptins, metformin, sulphonylureas, insulin, and other) alone and in combination.   
 MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES First recorded diagnoses of amputation, blindness, severe kidney failure, hyperglycaemia, and hypoglycaemia recorded on patients' primary care, mortality, or hospital records. Cox models estimated hazard ratios for diabetes treatments adjusting for potential confounders.   
 RESULTS 21,308 (4.5%) and 32,533 (6.9%) patients received prescriptions for glitazones and gliptins during follow-up, respectively. Compared with non-use, glitazones were associated with a decreased risk of blindness (adjusted hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.89; rate 14.4 per 10,000 person years of exposure) and an increased risk of hypoglycaemia (1.22, 1.10 to 1.37; 65.1); gliptins were associated with a decreased risk of hypoglycaemia (0.86, 0.77 to 0.96; 45.8). Although the numbers of patients prescribed gliptin monotherapy or glitazones monotherapy were relatively low, there were significantly increased risks of severe kidney failure compared with metformin monotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio 2.55, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 5.74). We found significantly lower risks of hyperglycaemia among patients prescribed dual therapy involving metformin with either gliptins (0.78, 0.62 to 0.97) or glitazones (0.60, 0.45 to 0.80) compared with metformin monotherapy. Patients prescribed triple therapy with metformin, sulphonylureas, and either gliptins (adjusted hazard ratio 5.07, 95% confidence interval 4.28 to 6.00) or glitazones (6.32, 5.35 to 7.45) had significantly higher risks of hypoglycaemia than those prescribed metformin monotherapy, but these risks were similar to those involving dual therapy with metformin and sulphonylureas (6.03, 5.47 to 6.63). Patients prescribed triple therapy with metformin, sulphonylureas, and glitazones had a significantly reduced risk of blindness compared with metformin monotherapy (0.67, 0.48 to 0.94).   
 CONCLUSIONS We have found lower risks of hyperglycaemia among patients prescribed dual therapy involving metformin with either gliptins or glitazones compared with metformin alone. Compared with metformin monotherapy, triple therapy with metformin, sulphonylureas, and either gliptins or glitazones was associated with an increased risk of hypoglycaemia, which was similar to the risk for dual therapy with metformin and sulphonylureas. Compared with metformin monotherapy, triple therapy with metformin, sulphonylureas, and glitazones was associated with a reduced risk of blindness. These results, while subject to residual confounding, could have implications for the prescribing of hypoglycaemic drugs.
A:
True