cct-sssc-retreat (Abstracts)

Abstracts & Presentations

The organizing committee encourages everyone to submit an abstract! There will be only three sections this year:

  • Basic Science Research
  • Technologies and Methodologies Development
  • Clinical and Epidemiological and Translational Research

The abstract may have a maximum length of 500 words (no tables or figures) and should be divided into the following parts:

  • Background and Hypotheses
  • Study Design and Methods
  • Results and Conclusions

Symposium oral presentations from selected abstracts the (10min + 2min questions)
Pre-recorded flash presentations (3min), in lieu of poster presentation

Abstract title and name of the presenting author will be posted online shortly before the Retreat.  

NOTE:  Abstracts will not be edited. Be sure NOT to use special characters. (ex. dashes, single quotes, double quotes and Greek characters/symbols)

Best Presentation Awards

All abstracts will be judged, the best abstracts will be selected for an oral presentation in the symposium, and the best presentations will be recognized with a travel award. Travel awards will be provided by CCR, DCEG, and Leidos. 

Please note that abstracts must be submitted by February 26th to enter the judging process and that you yourself must present the material during the session to be considered for an award.  

Retreat Organizing Committee members and judges will not compete for an award. 

Please register using our online registration form.


How will the abstracts/presentations be judged? 

Data identifying the author/laboratory will be removed for the purpose of abstract evaluation, including also their own literature citations and credits. 

Using a scale of 1 - 5 (5 = best) abstracts/presentations will be evaluated in the following categories: 

1.Scientific merit (Significance/Impact)

Does the work address an important problem in the field? Does the work make a significant contribution and/or extend existing body of knowledge or methodology in the field? Is there potential for the high impact of the work on advancement in the field? 


Is the work original and innovative? Does the work employ or develop novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for the field? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new and better methodologies or technologies? 

3.Hypotheses, Study Design and Analysis

Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed and appropriate to the aims of the study? Are there adequate data, controls, and analyses to support the conclusions? Are research objectives met and conclusions reasonable given the results? 

4.Overall Quality

Does the background provide appropriate perspective/context for the study objectives? Are the study objectives and answers well defined and clearly stated? Is the work clearly and thoughtfully organized, and presented comprehensively? 

Scores of abstracts that are judged by different groups of judges and / or that are in different sections will be normalized and ranked by z-score.