Hackathon 2021

The 2021 Data Science Hackathon will be held virtually online during August 9-10, 2021. This would be the third data science hackathon organized by the (then) UAB Informatics Institute. We invite informaticians, statisticians, bioengineers, data scientists, cancer researchers, and oncologists at all levels to participate in solving cancer-related research, prevention, and healthcare practice problems using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data science. 

We are providing all hackathon registrants an optional “pre-hackathon” module in the next eight weeks. The pre-hackathon module includes informational webinars, training boot camps, and virtual networking events weekly to help those uncomfortable with the hackathon “ease” into the hackathon competition. These events will be recorded, and the content will be made available online. In addition, we have prepared slack channels, virtual social network lounges, AirTables, cancer clinical data sets, and U-BRITE computing infrastructure to make teaming up and generating ideas easier than before. 

Agenda – Day 1

Monday, August 9, 2021

Agenda – Day 2

Tuesday, August 10, 2021

Main Awards

There will be three main prizes (first, second, and third) to the overall top three team projects. The evaluation criteria are listed below.

Evaluation Criteria:

Significance

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Team

Are the team members well suited to the project? Do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise? Is at least one team member’s organization affiliated with a participating or sponsoring organization (e.g., CTSA, NCI)?

Innovation

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Approach

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? Will the strategy establish feasibility, and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as age, gender, and risk factors?

Scientific Rigor and Progress

Has the team presented prior work and cited appropriate scientific literature? Have they presented the current state of the problem and current challenges? Given the baseline, how much progress has the team made in addressing challenges during the hackathon? Are there clear plans for future work?

Integrity, Transparency, and Sharing

Have investigators used tools, datasets, and other resources that are publicly available? Have they agreed to share their findings (once published)? Do their work product and artifacts seem appropriate for the project, length of available time, and level of expertise? Are there any red flags?

Presentation Quality

How well have the reviewers presented their work? Please consider the quality of organization, visuals, communication skills, clarity, and conciseness in the presentation.

Overall Impact

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the above review criteria.

Bonus Awards

In addition to the three main awards, there are two bonus awards:

1. MCBIOS Interdisciplinary Team Science Award

2. Health Equity Award

Projects must be eligible for the main awards and will be judged based on additional criteria. A team that wins a main award is also eligible to compete for a bonus award.

MCBIOS Interdisciplinary Team Science Award

Awarded to the project that meets main award criteria and best exemplifies team science through interdisciplinary collaboration across diverse:

1. Fields and areas of expertise
2. Stages in the translational spectrum
3. Institutions
4. Career stages (e.g., students, fellows, faculty, staff)
5. All team members should contribute significantly in research, work, and presentation.
6. Eligibility:
7. At least one team member must be a member of MCBIOS.

Special introductory membership rates are available until August 20, 2021. Visit https://www.mcbios.com to join.

Judging

1. The Judging Committee is composed of interdisciplinary research scientists from diverse fields and institutions.
2. Judges may mentor overall but not advise specific teams.
3. Judges will evaluate presentations and project materials using the criteria listed for main and bonus awards.
4. In case of a tie, the committee will deliberate and select winners.
5. All judging decisions are final and subject to the discretion of the Chair of the Judging Committee.