Grants and Awards

ICCBH New Investigator Award winners 2015

Rawan Abu Hilal (Beer-Sheva, Israel), P81   
Stephanie Borg (Sheffield, UK), OC21
Mattia Capulli (L’Aquila, Italy), OC14
Ka Yee Cheuk (Hong Kong, Hong Kong), OC1
Moira Cheung (London, UK), P48
Stéphanie De Rechter (Leuven, Belgium), P31
Marissa den Hoed (Rotterdam, The Netherlands), OP6
Manisha Dixit (Lucknow, India), OC16
Laura Gambari (Bologna, Italy), OP7
Roberta Gioia (Pavia, Italy), OC12
Mina Nicole Händel (Frederiksberg, Denmark), OC22
Heike Hoyer-Kuhn (Cologne, Germany), OC7
Alex Ireland (Manchester, UK), OC6
Riikka Mäkitie (Helsinki, Finland), OC9
Rubina Mandlik (Pune, India), P63
Masaki Matsushita (Nagoya, Japan), OC13
Carolina Medina-Gomez (Rotterdam, Netherlands), OC5
Rebecca Moon (Southampton, UK), OP10
Vrinda Saraff (Birmingham, UK), P113
Simon Schoenbuchner (Cambridge, UK), P129
Leslie Silk (Strathfield, Australia), P22
Elisa Man Shan Tam (Hong Kong, Hong Kong), P56
Vina Tan (Kota Bharu, Malaysia), OC3
Josephine Tauer (Dresden, Germany), OC15
Emma Webb (Birmingham, UK), OP1

New Investigator Awards are offered according to mean score achieved during the blind reviewing process.  See "How is my abstract scored?" section of the Abstract submission guidelines for more information about the criteria used during the review process.

Best Poster, Best Oral Poster and Best Oral Awards are judged at the Conference according to the following criteria:

Orals

1. Scientific concept: introduction to the subject, secure knowledge, aims of the investigation;
2. Scientific content: practical approach taken and results obtained;
3. Discussion of results and justification of conclusions arising;
4. Style of oral presentation: clarity, speed of delivery, engagement with audience;
5. Visual presentation: use of visual aids; clarity of presentation;
6. Timing of oral delivery: keeping within the allotted time;
7. Response to questions.

Posters

1. Scientific concept: introduction to the subject of the talk, secure knowledge, aims of the investigation;
2. Scientific content: practical approach taken and results obtained;
3. Discussion of results and justification of conclusions arising;
5. The visual presentation: use of visual aids; clarity of layout;
6. Response to questions.

We are grateful to Alexion, ASBMR and IBMS for financial support towards the provision of these awards.