Date:

NWAAPM holds the MedPhys Slam competition during our Spring meeting.

Summary

MedPhys Slam is a research communication competition in which participants prepare a three-minute presentation aimed at sharing the significance of their science in a compelling yet understandable manner. Researchers spend day in and day out investigating the minutiae of their topics, yet, to market a product or themselves, the minutia must be understood by more than just the scientific community. It’s all in the art of communication, and this is what MedPhys Slam aims to foster in the medical physics community.

This competition is open to all students and trainees. The preliminary competitions will take place at the local chapter meetings throughout the year, and those winners will participate in the final competition at the AAPM annual meetings.

The rules are simple: participants have three minutes to present their research using a maximum of three PowerPoint slides. Participants will be judged on three equally weighted categories: comprehension/content, communication, and engagement. Not only will this be of interest to those within medical physics, it can be expanded as a AAPM media initiative aimed at communicating what we do to the public. Presentations will be recorded and posted on social media outlets like FaceBook and a dedicated YouTube Channel.

Prizes:

• The winning NWAAPM Slam Contestant will represent the Chapter at the Annual AAPM Meeting
• The NWAAPM Chapter will reimburse travel, registration, and lodging costs for the representative to attend the national AAPM meeting, up to $2000.

Who is eligible?

You must be a current Associate or Associate-Student member of AAPM (undergraduate or graduate student, resident, postdoc, MPA, or clinical engineer). Your presentation must be based on your own, original research.

Presentation Format:

Visuals

• PowerPoint slides allowed but optional; no Prezi or other presentation formats
• Maximum of 3 slides, exclusive of title slide
• Slide material cannot be created by a professional
• No embedding of audio and/or video clips is allowed
• No gifs, animations, or slide transitions allowed.

No additional props (e.g. laser pointers, costumes, musical instruments, laboratory equipment) are permitted

In cases of collaborative research, the presenter’s contribution to the project must be salient and clearly specified

Presentations must be given in English. Spoken word presentations (e.g. poems, rap,or song) are not permitted

Presenters must remain on stage for the duration of their presentation
Timing will commence from the moment the presenter starts talking with 3 minutes permitted (-1 point if overtime, plus an additional 1 point penalty per 5 seconds thereafter)

Structure

• Each AAPM Regional/Local Chapter (and one International category) holds a similar competition to select a single winner to represent the chapter at the AAPM annual meeting.
• STSC organizes a final event for the Chapter champions to be held at the AAPM meetings.
  How is this different than the Early Career Symposium (formerly YIS)?
  The purpose of the MedPhys Slam is entirely different than YIS. The audience for our event is not medical physicists; it is a general audience that may have no background knowledge of the field. Presenters have 3 minutes to give the “what, how, and why” of their research and convince a panel of judges that their work is impactful and important.
• Typical judges include:
  • Local news anchor/reporter
  • Local high school physics teacher
  • Local university professor (communications, theater, performing arts, physical sciences?)
  • Local politician (mayor, council member, school board?)
  • Local musician?
  • Marketing or communications director from a vendor (this could be one of our typical vendors, but someone who is not a physicist)
  • Patient advocate/cancer survivor

Benefits of this event

For the students/trainees who participate, this event will provide an opportunity to practice and develop skills in communicating their research to a public audience. This is an opportunity that is relatively rare for researchers who most often present and publish their work targeted toward an audience of their scientific peers.

For AAPM, this event will allow for the recording and producing of videos of high-quality speakers presenting current research in a way that is ready for a public audience. The videos can be shared to a wide audience and will help spread the word about exciting research in our field. Additionally, depending on who is invited as a judge, there is a potential to provide good visibility of our field and annual meeting to the local community.

The same benefits can be scaled to the AAPM Chapters for their local events. The ideal chapter would provide mentorship, guidance, and funding support to their participant. The chapter members can then rally behind “their” representative in the final competition.

Prior to competing in the NWAAPM Chapter Meeting, please watch these example Slam Presentations from the National AAPM Competition:

2018 MedPhys Slam:

​https://www.aapm.org/education/VL/vl.asp?id=12790  https://www.aapm.org/education/VL/default.asp?t=byE&e=AM&y=2018

Scoring

Comprehension/Content (out of 10):

• Did the presentation clearly identify the research question/topic being addressed and its significance?
• Did the presentation help the audience understand the research?
• Did the presenter clearly outline the nature and aims of research?
• Did the presenter clearly indicate what was significant about this research, and how their individual work advances the area of research?
• Did the presentation follow a logical sequence?

Communication (out of 10):

• Was the thesis topic communicated in language appropriate to a non-specialist audience?
• Did the speaker use sufficient eye contact and vocal range, and maintain a steady pace?
• Did the speaker avoid scientific jargon, explain terminology, and provide adequate background information to illustrate points?
• Did the presenter spend the right amount of time on each element of the presentation – did the presenter elaborate for too long or rush?
• Did the slides enhance, rather than detract from, the presentation; was it clear, legible, and concise?

Engagement (out of 10):

• Did the presentation make the audience want to know more?
• Was the presenter careful not to trivialize or ‘dumb down’ the research?
• Did the presenter convey enthusiasm for the research?
• Did the presenter capture and maintain their audience’s attention?
• Would the audience want to know more about the speaker’s research?