00:19:47 Ralf Mekle: Hello from Berlin, Germany! 00:19:51 Katy Keenan: Welcome to the 3rd seminar in our abstract writing series! 00:20:57 Katy Keenan: Please use the chat to let us know where you are joining from today. (And don’t forget to set the chat to ‘Everyone’ so that we can all see.) 00:21:35 Angela Teeple: calling in from Minnesota, United States! 00:53:08 Durgesh Dwivedi: Great talk, Mami! Could you please share your thoughts on the following: 1. What strategies do you recommend for effectively highlighting the significance of MR imaging findings in clinical abstracts, esp. when the technique is novel but the clinical outcomes are still preliminary? 2. ISMRM abstracts are expected to demonstrate both technical innovation and clinical relevance. How do you suggest balancing detailed MR physics methodology with clinical impact, without compromising clarity? (Often a submitter struggle with deciding how much technical vs. clinical content to include when they have a lot of material) 00:54:18 PABAMANEE DALEI: Hello mam, I am currently pursuing an MSc in radiography from Parul University also doing the research. My question is, how many types of abstracts utilized? What is the process for evaluating abstracts through a double blind peer review? 00:56:38 Durgesh Dwivedi: What are the best practices for incorporating figures or visuals in an ISMRM clinical abstract. Thanks! 01:00:55 Katy Keenan: @Pabamanee - I’d recommend that you watch the first seminar in the series. It covers the review process and meeting assembly in detail 01:04:03 PABAMANEE DALEI: thank you mam for your kind response. i will definitely look into it. 01:12:55 Mami Iima, MD, Ph.D./Speaker: Thank you Durgesh for the great questions! I think technical and clinical content could be about 50-50, but it depends on the study - some need more technical details, others need more clinical focus. The most important thing is to spend more time on the figures and tables, making them clear and easy to understand for everyone. 01:16:08 Durgesh Dwivedi: Wonderful talk, Sila! Pl suggest on the following: What distinguishes a strong AI abstract with clear clinical relevance from one that simply reports improved AUCs or PSNRs on test datasets? 01:19:10 Ralf Mekle: Very nice! Do you think a flowchart as a first figure is helpful, even if the "flow of the presented work" , is rather simple? 01:19:52 Sila Kurogol, Ph.D./Speaker: I think it still helps! 01:20:08 Ralf Mekle: Thanks! 01:21:04 Houchun Hu: Thank you everyone. Great series! 01:21:27 PABAMANEE DALEI: thank you everyone for the wonderful session 01:21:34 Durgesh Dwivedi: Thank you all! 01:21:49 Ralf Mekle: Very helpful series of sessions!