Page 338 - ASHG 2013 Program Guide

CMEs and CEUs
  319
CMEs and CEUs
Recognize methods to use centralized databases in the diagnosis and
treatment of patients.
ASHG 2013 Target Audience
This meeting is targeted to research scientists, clinical and laboratory practitioners,
and others interested in 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 2013 program is highlighted by 21 invited scientific sessions that have been
scheduled over three concurrent time periods. The Program Committee reviewed
67 
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
2013
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 the committee member 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 sent electronically 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