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".

Q: Paragraph: Background: Healthcare personnel often use incorrect technique for donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE). Objective: We tested the hypothesis that medical students receive insufficient training on correct methods for donning and doffing PPE. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of medical students on clinical rotations at two teaching hospitals to determine the type of training they received in PPE technique. The students performed simulations of contaminated PPE removal with fluorescent lotion on gloves and were assessed for correct PPE technique and skin and/or clothing contamination. To obtain additional information on PPE training during medical education, residents, fellows, and attending physicians completed written questionnaires on PPE training received during medical school and on knowledge of PPE protocols recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Results: Of 27 medical students surveyed, only 11 (41%) reported receiving PPE training, and none had received training requiring demonstration of proficiency. During simulations, 25 of 27 (92.5%) students had one or more lapses in technique and 12 (44%) contaminated their skin with fluorescent lotion. For 100 residents, fellows and attending physicians representing 67 different medical schools, only 53% reported receiving training in use of PPE and only 39% selected correct donning and doffing sequence. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that there is a need for development of effective strategies to train medical students in correct use of PPE. 
 Title: Do medical students receive training in correct use of personal protective equipment?

A: True
****
Q: Paragraph: Rapid diagnosis of adenoviral respiratory infections is required in order to decide optimal treatment strategies. The adenovirus antigen immunochromatography Adeno Respiratory Card Letitest (Leti diagnostics, Barcelona, Spain), was evaluated versus the shell-vial culture and multiplex PCR (Clart Pneumovir Version 3.0, Genomica, Madrid, Spain), in nasopharyngeal washes and oropharyngeal swabs specimens from subjects with respiratory tract infections. Between April 2011 and November 2012, 224 patients were included. The IC Adeno Respiratory Card Letitest was positive for 77.9% (74 of 95) of patients diagnosed at bedside. Using multiplex-PCR as the reference standard, the overall sensitivity was 77.9% and the specificity was 73.6%. Taking shell-viral culture as the reference method, the Adeno Respiratory Card Letitest (Leti diagnostics, Barcelona, Spain) sensitivity and specificity values were 80.0% and 60.9%, respectively. Using RT-PCR (Clart Pneumovir Version 3.0, Genomica, Madrid, Spain) as the reference standard, the viral culture sensitivity was 53.2% and the specificity was 100%. The Adeno Respiratory Card Letitest (Leti diagnostics, Barcelona, Spain) assay could be a simple and rapid method for antigenic detection of adenovirus in pediatric respiratory samples although it would be necessary to improve the specificity and sensitivity of the test. 
 Title: Immunochromatographic test for detection of adenovirus from respiratory samples: Is it a real solution for pediatric emergency department?

A: True
****
Q: Paragraph: Pneumonia is one of the most common causes of death from infectious diseases worldwide, and the most common fatal infection acquired in hospitals. Despite advances in prevention strategies, such as antibiotic therapies and intensive care, significant improvement in the mortality rate is still lacking. This high mortality is largely due to the limitations in current clinical practices and laboratory tests, which delay the timing of adequate antibiotic therapy. In recent years, many indicators (biomarkers) are present in scenarios where infectious pathogens invade into the body. These biomarkers, as reflected in specific biological responses to infections, have been reported to demonstrate the ability to facilitate the diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of pneumonia. This review provides a schematic overview of these new potential biomarkers based on the categories of (1) microorganisms and their derivatives, (2) inflammation mediators, (3) inflammation response proteins, and (4) stress-sensing proteins. In addition, approaches to identifying new biomarkers are also briefly introduced. Although no current biomarker can solely achieve a definitive diagnosis, many of them can be complemented, rather than replaced outright, in routine clinical practices to improve decision-making processes regarding pneumonia. 
 Title: New markers in pneumonia

A:
True
****
