Page 340 - ASHG 2012 Annual Meeting Program Guide

CMEs and CEUs
327
CMEs and CEUs
Recognize methods to utilize centralized databases in the diagnosis and
treatment of patients.
ASHG 2012 Target Audience
This meeting is targeted to research scientists, clinical and laboratory practitioners
and others interested in the field of human genetics and genomics. There is some
special focus on workshops intended for trainees. The program is varied so that
participants may select from several concurrent sessions that fit their specialized
research interests and clinical practice applications.
Program Format
Invited Sessions
The 2012 program is highlighted by 24 invited scientific sessions that have been
scheduled over three concurrent time periods. The Program Committee reviewed
95
proposals for invited sessions. The review process took into consideration the
merit and timeliness of each proposal as well as the need to balance topics in the
overall scientific program. The sessions highlight a wide range of topics of interest to
genetics practitioners, researchers and counselors. Any conflicts were managed in
the process described above.
Plenary Session Presentations and Platform Sessions (abstract-driven)
The Plenary Session includes a diverse set of six presentations, selected from the
top-rated abstracts submitted for this year’s annual meeting as determined by the
2012
Program Committee. Forty-five abstract-driven platform sessions totaling
405
oral presentations have been programmed. There are five sets of nine concurrent
platform sessions.
The Program Committee had the difficult task of determining which abstracts would
be accepted, and in what presentation format. Below is a brief description of how this
task was performed:
1.
Based on the author’s topic preference and keyword selection, an abstract
was initially reviewed by the Program Committee member responsible for
that topic. If it was determined that the abstract would be more appropriately
categorized under another topic, it was transferred to that topic. Sub-topic
designations were helpful in assigning abstracts to the most appropriate topic.
2.
Each abstract was then electronically sent to three reviewers (including a
Program Committee member) who are experts in the field. Each reviewer
scored the abstracts independently and without knowledge of the score given
by the other reviewers. Abstracts were then assigned a score from 1 (highest
priority) to 8 (reject). The best cumulative score that an abstract could obtain
from all three reviewers was a 3 (1+1+1). Any conflicts were managed in the
process described above.
3.
In general, abstracts receiving scores within the top 8% for each topic were
selected for platform (oral) presentations. The number of available oral