Dear Examiners,

We would like to remind you about the important deadline for submitting score sheets.
It is crucial that all score sheets are submitted by 19:30 Greek time on June 20 2024.
To submit your score sheets, please use the form below.

If you encounter any technical difficulties or require further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact office@BioEM.org.

Please note that any score sheets received after the specified deadline may not be considered for evaluation, potentially impacting the overall results of the event.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

We greatly appreciate your cooperation.

Best regards,

Awards Committee BioEM 2024

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Examiner Information

Examiner Name *

Examiner email *

Abstract Information

Presenter name *

Abstract ID *Abstract ID FA01&013A-The effect of 50 Hz MFs on DNA damage in senescent human fetal lung fibroblasts-Zhu LongtaoFA02&015A-NEAR-FIELD WIRE-PROBE AS THZ SENSOR TO DETECT COLLECTIVE OSCILLATIONS OF BIOMOLECULES-Tristan BérangerFA03&025A-Non-thermal electro-sterilization of Streptococcus mutans from temperature-time product point of view.-Atsushi MatsuokaFA04&031A-On Electromagnetic Stimulation in Biomanufacturing – Optimisation Using Fluorescent Reporters as a Proxy for Productivity-Afra AlkatheeriFA05&037A-Effects of Extremely Low Frequency Weak Magnetic Fields Superimposed on Geomagnetic Field on HT-1080 Fibrosarcoma Cells-Nhat DangFA06&041A-Delayed growth in immature male rats exposed to 900MHz radiofrequency.-Raphaël BodinFA07&053A-Temporal Change of Outdoor RF-EMF levels in European Countries: a Microenvironmental Measurement Study – Example of the Netherlands.-Lea BelackovaFA08&059A-SINUSOIDAL MAGNETIC FIELDS ON WORKING MEMORY PERFORMANCE AND EEG SIGNALS IN HUMANS-Maëlys MoulinFA09&069A-5G Base Station Electromagnetic Field Strength Estimation Method using Deep Learning for Compliance Test-Dongryul ParkFA10&075A-DESIGN OF A LOW SAR 4-PORT MIMO ANTENNA FOR 3.5 GHZ 5G AND 5.8 GHZ ISM BANDS-MD ABU SUFIANFA11&151A-A novel non-invasive magnetic acoustic electric composite field focusing stimulation method (M-TMAS)-Xu LiuFA12&081A-PDMS BASED FLEXIBLE AND LOW SAR DUAL BAND ANTENNA FOR BODY AREA NETWORK-Anees AbbasFA13&083A-Microwave surgical energy device with controllable heating region-Tsugumi NishidateFA14&099A-Ray Tracing-based Analysis of the Influence on the Scattering of the Electric Field Caused by the Measuring Person at 6G Frequencies-Thanh Tam Julian TaFA15&101A-5G NR FR1 CONTRIBUTION TO THE TOTAL EMF EXPOSURE LEVELS DURING GROUND LEVEL SPOT MEASUREMENTS IN URBAN AND SUBURBAN ENVIRONMENTS IN GREECE-Athanasios ManassasFA16&005A-Generation of Silent Voice Commands Based on High-Density Laryngeal Electromyography-Yuanyuan LiFA18&091A-Sensor Model Linearization via Artificial Intelligence-Alessandro FasseFA19&113A-Robust Validation Methods for Systems Determining the Absorbed Power Density-Ninad ChitnisFA20&153A-High-Resolution Voxel-Based Numerical Modelling of the Eye Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Beyond 6 GHz-Fatima AlzaabiFB01&006B-A wearable cardiac physiological signal monitoring method assisted by seismocardiogram signal-Haoyue WangFB02&012B-High precision temperature analysis considering temperature-dependent physical properties for renal denervation.-Tohgo HosodaFB04&034B-Effects of fifth-generation (5G) environmental radiofrequency signals on oxidative stress and DNA repair in skin cells: a BRET study.-Jana HaidarFB05&036B-Cytogenetic effects of in vitro exposure to 5G-Modulated 3.5 GHz signal on HaCaT cell line: preliminary results from the NextGEM Project.-Seppe SegersFB06&042B-Delayed growth in immature male rats exposed to 900 MHz radiofrequency-Raphaël BodinFB07&060B-Changes in ambient radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) levels between 2021 and 2023 in Switzerland: a 5G Hiker Story-Nicolas LoizeauFB08&078B-A Serious Game Approach to Increase the Public’s Understanding of Scientific Uncertainty in Risk Assessment and Communication-Ferdinand AbaciogluFB09&082B-A LOW SAR PDMS BASED IRS LOADED ANTENNA FOR 5G SUB-6-GHZ BODY AREA NETWORK-Wahaj Abbas AwanFB10&100B-PREDICTIVE MODELING OF EXPOSURE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS-Athanasios ManassasFB11&106B-ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR RF PROPAGATION IN LAYERED SPHERES: USE OF HIGH PERMITTIVITY MATERIALS IN ULTRA-HIGH FIELD MAGNETIC RESONANCE OF THE BRAIN-Vincenzo MirandaFB12&118B-A High-Voltage Tunable Pulse System with Tens of Nanosecond Pulse Width for Low Impedance Biological Solution Loads-Wen DangFB13&120B-Prediction of therapeutic effect to transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for treatment-resistant depression using a combination of electric field simulation and functional connectivity analysis index-Anna IinoFB14&014B-The effect of 50 Hz MFs on human cytomegalovirus infection in human fetal lung fibroblasts-Zhu LongtaoFB15&124B-Methods of Reducing the Uncertainty of Dielectric Tissue Properties at Low Frequencies and Its Impact on Dosimetry-Cindy KarinaFB16&130B-PLANNING 5G NON-PUBLIC NETWORK IN A REAL HOSPITAL-CASE SCENARIO: A RAY TRACING SIMULATION STUDY-Francesca LodatoFB17&152B-Ultrasonic vibration potential effect in magneto-acoustic coupled electrical stimulation-kai zhuOS01-01-Characterization of Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields in Realistic Scenarios-Soukaina MifdalOS01-03-Assessment of Human RF Exposure from ITS-5.9 GHz Vehicular-Road Connectivity by Numerical Dosimetry and In-lab Measurements-Yizhen YangOS01-04-Effect of beamforming on EMF exposure at an office environment-Christos ApostolidisOS02-03-Occupational Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields and the risk of glioma-Rohan MateOS02-04-Electrodermal activity and body temperature during and after short-term exposure to 3.5 GHz frequencies in healthy young adults-Lisa MICHELANTOS02-05-Effects of acute RF-EMF exposure and eMedia use on the quality of sleep in Swiss adolescents: a panel study nested in the HERMES3 cohort-Valentin Jaki WaiblOS03-03-Contribution of Ion Channel Nonlinearities to the Mechanism of Temporal Interference Stimulation-Tom PlovieOS04-02-Exploratory analysis of 4G and 5G uplink RF-EMF exposure using network parameters in outdoor microenvironments in Belgium during a maximum uplink usage scenario-Bram StroobandtOS04-03-Design of a low-cost triaxial 5G RF-EMF exposure sensor-Jeroen Van der StraetenOS04-06-RF-EMF exposure assessment with add-on uplink exposure sensor in different microenvironments in three European countries-Han Van BladelOS05-02-The therapeutic effect of different intensities of alternating electric fields in melanoma-Yue LanOS05-03-Chondroprotective effects of rotating magnetic field on osteoarthritis in rats via the restoration of mitochondrial function-Hua YangOS05-05-Characterisation of the Core Temperature Response of Free-Moving Rats to 1.95GHz Electromagnetic Fields-Nathan BalaOS05-06-Effect of 1950MHz whole-body radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on brown adipose tissue activity in C57BL/6 mice-Emma SylvesterOS07-02-EFFICIENT RETRIEVAL OF SAMPLE PERMITTIVITY FROM MICROWAVE PLANAR PASSIVE DEVICES MEASUREMENTS ACROSS A WIDE FREQUENCY RANGE-Petr KurkaOS08-01-Exploring RF-EMF levels in Swiss microenvironments: An evaluation of environmental and auto-induced downlink exposure in the era of 5G.-Adriana Fernandes VeludoOS08-02-Signal-Strength-Based RF-EMF Exposure Estimation Using the ETAIN EMF Monitor App: First Results From a Far-Field Calibration Function-Nekane Sandoval-DiezOS09-03-Investigation of the frequency response of electrical vestibular stimulation with frequency-modulated currents-Janita NissiOS09-04-Estimating forearm tissue conductivities from 30 Hz to 1 MHz using measurements and modelling-Otto KangasmaaOS09-05-Using EEG to characterize brain activity in response to peripheral magnetic stimulation-Eleonore FresnelOS10-03-In-depth exposure assessment to extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) in Switzerland between 2021 and 2023 in numerous public areas, in transport and in private homes-Nicolas LoizeauOS11-01-Flexible Electromagnetic Phantom with Electrotextile Backing for 60 GHz Wearables and Remote Monitoring-Rossella RizzoOS11-04-Evaluation of the Impact of Buffering a 5G Application on the Instantaneous Exposure Compared to a Constant Data Rate in the Vicinity of Massive MIMO Base Stations-Anna-Malin SchiffarthOS11-05-Characterization of EMF hotspots for realistic exposure assessment in end-to-end simulations using a hybrid QuaDRiGa/FDTD tool-Robin WydaegheOS11-06-Accelerating mmWave exposure simulations and the OUTREACH idea to industry-Robin WydaegheOS12-03-MICRO-SYSTEM FOR CULTURE AND ELECTROPORATION PARAMETERS SCREENING ON A POPULATION OF SPHEROIDS USING A GRADIENT OF ELECTRIC FIELD-Théo Le BerreOS12-04-A numerical model of bubble formation during intracardiac PFA-Peter Lombergar

Poster: On the right corner

Is presenter attending? *

• Yes
• No

If NO, then do NOT score this presentation and inform office@bioem.org

Conflict of interest

Are you from the same department? *

• Yes
• No

If YES, then do NOT score this presentation and inform office@bioem.org

In the previous 3 years, have you published together with the first or last author? *

• Yes
• No

If YES, then do NOT score this presentation and inform office@bioem.org

Presentations

Quality of slides and appropriateness *Dropdown54321

5 (Best – Significantly exceeded my expectations) 4 (Good – Met my expectations) 3 (Average – Close to my expectations) 2 (Poor – Below my expectations) 1 (Very Poor – Well below my expectations)

Did the student engage the audience using good volume, pace, articulation & use of gestures? Was the student's demeanor appropiate for a scientific talk? *Dropdown54321

5 (Best – Significantly exceeded my expectations) 4 (Good – Met my expectations) 3 (Average – Close to my expectations) 2 (Poor – Below my expectations) 1 (Very Poor – Well below my expectations)

Did the student present the work in clear, understandable language? *Dropdown54321

5 (Best – Significantly exceeded my expectations) 4 (Good – Met my expectations) 3 (Average – Close to my expectations) 2 (Poor – Below my expectations) 1 (Very Poor – Well below my expectations)

Was the time limit respected? *Dropdown54321

5 (Best – Significantly exceeded my expectations) 4 (Good – Met my expectations) 3 (Average – Close to my expectations) 2 (Poor – Below my expectations) 1 (Very Poor – Well below my expectations)

Scientific Content

Did the presentation include the appropriate components (i.e., introduction, purpose, hypothesis, methods, results, conclusion, & future work)? *Dropdown54321

5 (Best – Significantly exceeded my expectations) 4 (Good – Met my expectations) 3 (Average – Close to my expectations) 2 (Poor – Below my expectations) 1 (Very Poor – Well below my expectations)

Were the concept, importance, and result of the research adequately described? *Dropdown54321

5 (Best – Significantly exceeded my expectations) 4 (Good – Met my expectations) 3 (Average – Close to my expectations) 2 (Poor – Below my expectations) 1 (Very Poor – Well below my expectations)

Did the conclusion address the hypothesis or objective of the research? *Dropdown54321

5 (Best – Significantly exceeded my expectations) 4 (Good – Met my expectations) 3 (Average – Close to my expectations) 2 (Poor – Below my expectations) 1 (Very Poor – Well below my expectations)

Scientific Quality

How original was the research? * Dropdown54321

5 (Best – Significantly exceeded my expectations) 4 (Good – Met my expectations) 3 (Average – Close to my expectations) 2 (Poor – Below my expectations) 1 (Very Poor – Well below my expectations)

Questions

Were the questions interpreted correctly, i.e., were they understood? *Dropdown54321

5 (Best – Significantly exceeded my expectations) 4 (Good – Met my expectations) 3 (Average – Close to my expectations) 2 (Poor – Below my expectations) 1 (Very Poor – Well below my expectations)

Were the questions answered correctly and clearly, i.e., without technical jargon? *Dropdown54321

5 (Best – Significantly exceeded my expectations) 4 (Good – Met my expectations) 3 (Average – Close to my expectations) 2 (Poor – Below my expectations) 1 (Very Poor – Well below my expectations)

Was the student given ample opportunity by the chair to answer questions? *

• Yes
• No

If NO please explain:

Comments

Submit