Dear Examiners,

We would like to remind you of the important deadline for submitting score sheets. Two candidates will be presenting on Friday, June 21st (0S13-02 and 0S14-01). Given that the award session starts at 12:00 and 0S14-01 will finish her presentation at 10:45, we urgently request that you submit your score sheets immediately after her presentation. The submission deadline is 11:00 Greek time.

Please use the form below to submit your score sheets.

If you encounter any technical difficulties or need further assistance, please contact us at office@BioEM.org.

Please note that any score sheets received after the specified deadline may not be considered for evaluation, which could impact 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 ID129A-Investigating on Mobile Phone Transmitting Power for VoIP in Paris-Jiang LiuOS01-05-Evaluating Electro Pulsed Bio-hybrid in vivo electrostimulation of spinal cord injury in rats using numerical dosimetry-Micol ColellaOS06-04-What is the effect of alarmist media reports and RF-EMF exposure on salivary cortisol and non-specific symptoms?-Adam VerrenderOS07-01-Metal-free Fiber-bundle Fluorescence Microscopy for Quantifying Single-Cell Responses to Radiofrequency Sources-Zachary SteelmanOS13-02-A Convolutional Neural Network Based Transfer Function Evaluation Approach for Subcutaneous and Partially-Implanted Implantable Medical Devices under MRI Exposure-Aiping YaoOS14-01-Cellular effects of radiofrequency exposure to 1950 MHz, LTE signal, in human neuroblastoma cells in combination with menadione.-Mariateresa AlloccaWS3-Macroscopic and microscopic temperature measurements during exposure of multicellular spheroid tumors to nanosecond pulsed electric fields (nsPEF)-Rosa Orlacchio

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 institution? *

• Yes
• No

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

Have you published with the presenter or his/her supervisor in the past 3 years? *

• Yes
• No

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

Presentation Platform

Quality of slides, appropriateness & use of audio-visual equipment and pointer *Dropdown543210

Please complete this question exclusively for platform presentations. 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) 0 (No score)

Did the candidate engage the audience using good volume, pace, articulation & use of gestures? Was the candidate's demeanour appropriate for a scientific talk? *Dropdown543210

Please complete this question exclusively for platform presentations. 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) 0 (No score)

Presentation Poster

Visual appeal, logical layout of components, good use of colour, and easy to read text (i.e. from 2 m away) *Dropdown543210

Please complete this question exclusively for poster presentations. 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) 0 (No score)

Did the candidate engage the audience using good volume, pace, articulation & use of gestures? Was the candidate's demeanour appropriate for a scientific discussion?: *Dropdown543210

Please complete this question exclusively for poster presentations. 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) 0 (No score)

Presentation Poster and Platform

Did the candidate present the work in clear understandable language? *Dropdown543210

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) 0 (No score)

Was the time limit respected? *Dropdown543210

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) 0 (No score)

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 candidate given ample opportunity by the chair to answer questions? *

• Yes
• No

If NO please explain:

Comments

Submit