Skip to main content
Top of the Page

Abstract Topic Categories

Abstract categories are grouped by subcategories within broader areas. Select from the main topics below to view additional subcategories.

100 Anatomy
101 Anatomy: Animal Models
102 Anatomy: Gastrointestinal
103 Anatomy: Cardiovascular
104 Anatomy: Form & Variation
105 Anatomy: Functional Anatomy & Biomechanics
106 Anatomy: Respiratory
107 Anatomy: Neural
108 Anatomy: Musculoskeletal
109 Anatomy: Urogenital
110 Anatomy: Ethics
111 Anatomy: Outreach

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

Abstract Scoring

To establish consistency and rigor in the abstract review process, we have developed an abstract scoring rubric. The scoring rubric was devised in order to ensure high scientific quality and importance, incorporate a rigorous scientific review process, and maintain consistency across reviewers. 

Abstracts that are research focused (i.e., non-descriptive works) will be prioritized over descriptive works and given more consideration when selecting abstracts for oral talks and the Student/Postdoc Competition Finalists. While the submission of descriptive works is encouraged, please recognize that the evaluation of scientific and educational research presentations relies heavily on the tenets of the scientific process as a guide to compare and judge the quality of presentations.

The scoring rubric will be used to score all submitted abstracts. It is expected that all authors will review the scoring rubric in advance of submitting their abstract. In summary, abstracts will be scored in the following categories: 

  • Introduction & Objective – (5 points) Was the research question/objective stated clearly? The introduction should provide context to your reader, an introduction to your topic and its importance, and your study objective, question, or hypothesis, whichever is appropriate.
  • Materials and Methods – (5 points) Was the approach/method for answering the question stated clearly and is it appropriate to the study? The materials and methods section should include brief, clear statements of the appropriate methods used to conduct the study. Keep this as straightforward as you can. If the methods were unusual or novel describe in slightly more detail.
  • Results – (10 points) Were the results clearly stated and placed in their appropriate context? A summary of the most important results must be included. Key findings should be clear, concise, and explicit. Results should include supporting data. Lack of results with supporting data will lead to your abstract score being lowered for this section. Include appropriate statistics to support claims of significance. 
  • Conclusion – (5 points) Did the conclusion clearly communicate the take-home message from the study and did it relate to the study objective(s)?
  • Significance/Implication – (10 points) Did the author effectively communicate the significance of the results? This section should also include the importance/significance of the findings, and directions for future work and next steps. This is your opportunity to describe the significance of your findings to science and/or the translation of your findings to progress in your field.
Back to Top