CIMIT ModelClinical ImpactCommunity: CoLabContact Us
search
Student Technology Prize for Primary Healthcare

Quick Facts

Objective: Annual national competition designed to encourage students to apply their creative skills to the development of technological innovations with great potential to support the improved delivery of care at the frontlines of medicine.

Eligibility: Open to graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in accredited engineering programs in the United States.

Status: Entries invited for 2014 competition, with online submission site opening on February 3, 2014 and pre-proposals due by March 3, 2014.

2014 Competition Details, Key Dates, Forms and Instructions

The 5th Annual Student Technology Prize in Primary Healthcare—administered under the auspices of the Massachusetts General Hospital's "Ambulatory Practice of the Future" (APF), assisted by CIMIT, and sponsored by the Gelfand Family Charitable Trust—is a $400,000 competition for engineering student to help advance their winning clinically-relevant, primary care solutions.

Technologies of particular interest are ones that could improve access to medical care, leverage the skills of caregivers, automate routine tasks, increase workflow efficiency, support patients with chronic disease, increase compliance with care protocols, reduce medical error, or augment the physician-patient relationship.

2014 AWARDS
First Prize $150,000
Second Prize $100,000
Third Prize $50,000
10 Finalists $10,000 each

2014 TIMELINE FOR COMPETITION
February 3, 2014 Submission process opens
Marh 3, 2014 Deadline for pre-proposals
April 1, 2014 10 Finalists announced and $10K distributed to each
(The funds will be transferred to the student(s) home institution for appropriate dispersal.)
July 1, 2014 Submission process for Invited Finalists opens
July 14, 2014 Deadline for final proposals from 10 Finalists
August 1, 2014 Top 3 Winners announced & major awards distributed
(The funds will be transferred to the student(s) home institution for appropriate dispersal.)

2014 RFA SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS
» Instructions for Online Submission of Letter of Intent (.pdf)
» Request for Applications (RFA) Letter of Intent Guidelines (.pdf)
» Coversheet (.doc)
» Full Proposal Guidelines (.pdf)
» Full Proposal Evaluation Criteria (.pdf)
» Student Technology Prize for Primary Healthcare Flyer (.pdf)
» Frequently Asked Questions (.pdf)
» Go to competition submission website

Additional Information

To read the answers to frequently asked question and the definition of primary care, see a list of previous winners and finalists and view scenario samples, click on the corresponding tab below. For further questions and assistance, email the administrators of the Student Technology Prize for Primary Healthcare at studentprize@partners.org.

  • FAQs
  • Primary Care
  • Scenarios
  • Past Winners

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

FAQs FOR LETTER OF INTENT SUBMISSIONS (PRE-PROPOSAL)

1. What is the definition of primary care?
Primary care is “frontline medicine,” and is typically delivered by internists, pediatricians, family practitioners and nurse practitioners. It is usually found in a clinic-based setting. A multi-disciplinary team-based approach to primary care can also include physicians, nurse practitioners, nutritionists, physical therapists and other professionals, collaborating in managing patient-care issues. Note that primary care is increasingly delivered via outreach to the home, workplace, satellite clinics and/or community settings – not just in the traditional “physician’s office” setting. Increased access and convenience are sought in this evolution, and innovative technology can play a significant role in accelerating desired changes in practice patterns.

2. Are international students enrolled in accredited engineering programs outside of the United States eligible to participate?
Unfortunately, the Student Prize for Primary Healthcare is only currently available for accredited programs in the United States. Perhaps in future years we will be able to expand it to international entrants.

3. Can one university or program submit multiple applications?
There is no limit on the number of applications a university or program can submit, however, a student (or student team) can submit only one application.

4. Can a student submit more than one application?
Students or their team can only submit one application, however, there is no limit on the number of applications a university or program can submit.

5. Can a team of students apply or just individual students?
Teams of students are strongly encouraged.

6. Can a student team include students from multiple universities and/or disciplines?
Students can be drawn from multiple universities and disciplines (e.g., medical students), however, the project leader must be an engineering student enrolled in good standing at the responsible institution.

7. Can the team include industry partners?
Only students can be on the team receiving the prize and using the prize money. However advice and/or technical help from industry professionals is acceptable as long as it is consistent with the student team’s institutional policies regarding industry relations.

8. Can the team include faculty members?
Only students can be on the team receiving the prize and using the prize money. However, mentorship by faculty members is certainly acceptable.

9. Can students participate who will graduate during the competition?
The student project leader submitting an entry must be enrolled and in good standing at the responsible institution for the duration of the competition, but the variations of student status of other members of the team is not a concern.

10. What is meant by “the responsible institutional official”?
Institutional Official means an individual at your engineering school with authority to accept responsibility for the stewardship of the funds in accordance with their institutional policies.

11. What information must the institutional letter of support convey?
The Letter of Support simply needs to be on institutional letterhead for verification of authenticity, and needs to affirm three things:

a) that the entrant is a student in good standing in the school,

b) that the institution will accept the responsibilities for oversight of any matters of compliance with regulations and policies,

c) that the institution will disburse the Prize funds, as transferred from the MGH/Partners HealthCare System, for purposes related to the advancement of the project or for direct support of the student or the benefit of the student's career, and will not deduct any indirect-cost amounts, tuition charges, or other fees of any sort.

12. Who retains the rights to any intellectual property generated by a proposal?
Management of intellectual property will be determined by the institutional policies of the entity responsible for the proposal. No rights to intellectual property are retained by the entities administering the award.

13. Should I disclose any unprotected proprietary information in the letter of intent?
Protecting proprietary information is the responsibility of the applicant and the applicant institution. Any intellectual property needing protection should be protected before submission (within the applicant's own institution's processes and policies) or should not be disclosed in the letter of intent, leaving time to protect it later before any public disclosure. A variety of reviewers will be used to select the finalists. They will not be asked to commit formally to non-disclosure agreements because of the volume of material they will be asked to review. Reviewers will be asked to treat conceptual material with the normal discretion asked of peer reviewers of manuscripts or proposals.

14. Can individuals who are not graduate or undergraduate students in engineering programs apply?
Individual applicants, or team leaders in the case of applicant teams, must be graduate or undergraduate students in engineering or technology-related programs. Clinicians may be collaborators. Business-school students or medical students may be team members, but the project leader(s) must be engineering student(s).

FAQs FOR FINALISTS

1. What expenses are allowable?
Any expense that advances the project towards a more advanced and compelling final submission is allowable. For example, these include any expenses for supplies, machine-shop charges, partial stipend support for a student-member of the team, project-related travel, and the like. Expenses must be reimbursed via your institution's check-payment procedures with the assistance of your institutional official who will act as steward of the $10,000 fund the MGH/Partners HealthCare System is providing to them.

2. Should expense receipts be submitted to MGH with the full proposal?
Receipts should be saved as documentation and review according to your own institution's requirements, but need not be submitted to MGH.

3. How should proprietary information be managed?
While the submitted materials will be treated with discretion, MGH, Partners HealthCare System, the APF and CIMIT cannot provide any assurance of confidentiality in accepting them. The administrators use reviewers, for example, in judging merit of the submissions, and while they will also be expected to use discretion they are not bound by any confidential-disclosure agreements. That would be impractical and unrealistic to seek. In fact your submission should be written with the potential of winning a final Prize in mind, and therefore with the understanding that publicity will be appropriate and of value to you in advancing the cause of your project. Even projects that do not win one of the three large prizes may be suitable for wider dissemination and publicity as part of our communication to media about the worthiness of all the entries. Thus information considered proprietary by you and not yet protected by copyright or patent-application processes should not be included in the submission. Functional performance can be described without all the underlying detail of any inventions or proprietary techniques, if those are sensitive material. We will endeavor to consult with all Finalists about any communications it releases in its publicity, but given the tight time-frame between final submission and announcement of the winners, it may not be possible to arrange your review or approval of the text in our announcements. In addition to general publicity, we may see specific opportunities to help you advance your project by connecting you with companies interested in commercializing portions of your work. In that case we will broker your direct contacts with such company(s) if you so desire. As stated in the original announcement of this Prize, any intellectual property remains under ownership of your institution, if so assigned, or of the inventors. The Prize's sponsors will not assert any rights related to the funding we provide.

4. Should the final submission include a budget?
A budget is not required. However, a statement as to the value of the prize to the recipient (either to advance the project or their career) would be a positive addition.

5. Is there a particular format/layout that is preferred for the submission?
There is no specific format/layout that is preferred, except that all text must be in a readable font (at least Arial 11 point) and margins must be at least 0.7 inches. The design of the submission is at the discretion of the finalist.

6. Is there a specific order that the sections must be addressed or is it open for the applicants to provide all of the information in the most compelling way?
The sequencing and approach is at the discretion of the finalist.

7. Should the final submission be more like a scientific write-up or a business write-up to pitch the idea?
The report should provide a compelling justification for the innovation with clear advocacy of the pathway to clinical impact.

8. Can additional sections be added to those listed in the website instructions for the final proposal?
Sections may be added at the discretion of the finalist.

9. Do business financials need to be included in the application?
Business financials do not need to be included in the application. However, any thoughts on the practicality of commercialization are welcome.

10. As we are writing the final proposal, should we address the project as if we are receiving $150,000, $100,000, or $50,000? Since there is a factor of 3 difference between first and third place, certain facets of the project could be accomplished given the largest of the prize monies but not necessarily with the smallest.
Your final entry will be judged based on the work to date (of submission at the end of May), and on its promise for the future within a reasonable time frame, with realistically achievable resources. Don't think specifically about whether it can reach full impact with one particular level of prize money from this competition alone. The judges won't consider that.

11. How do I include video attachments in the final submission?
Any videos you may have of your final projects can be posted to YouTube (or any other video hosting site) and the link included in your final submission. Please opt for the "private" posting option rather than the "public" posting.

Bookmark and Share

 

WHAT IS PRIMARY CARE?

Primary care describes the activity of a health care provider who acts as a first point of consultation for all patients. Continuity of care is also a key characteristic of primary care. Primary care involves the widest scope of health care including all ages of patients, patients of all socioeconomic and geographic origins, patients seeking to maintain optimal health, patients with acute conditions, and patients with chronic diseases. Common chronic illnesses include hypertension, diabetes mellitus, COPD, depression and back pain.

Primary care professionals seek to provide health promotion, disease prevention, health maintenance, counseling, patient education, diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic illnesses in a variety of health care settings including office, inpatient, critical care, long-term care, home care, day care, senior center, and clinic.

Bookmark and Share


SAMPLE PRIMARY CARE SCENARIOS

These illustrative primary care examples of patient needs and potential design opportunities are not intended to constrain the opportunity space but to stimulate thought. Applicants should feel free to work from personal experiences and those of clinical collaborators.

  1. Health and Wellness: A healthy 24-year-old woman with a sedentary lifestyle and stressful job feels motivated to develop strategies for weight management and long-term health. With her family history of heart disease, diabetes and cancer, prevention is her chief concern. How can technology enable patients to succeed at long-term personalized health management?

  2. Living with Chronic Illness: A 16-year-old girl with insulin-dependent diabetes maintains an active schedule filled with soccer, band, and art. She wears a continuous insulin-infusion pump, frequently checks her blood-glucose levels and carefully plans her diet and activity to maintain her health. How can technology help her manage these complex calculations and support her desire to lead a "normal" adolescent lifestyle?

  3. Mental and Cognitive Health: A 30-year-old male suffered multiple fractures and a traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident two years ago. A multi-disciplinary team continues to work with him to manage physical and cognitive issues; he wants to do more for himself. How can technology enable patients struggling with mental health and cognitive disorders to increase the degree of self-management?

  4. Alternative Care Models: A 48-year-old mother and full-time business executive must frequently disrupt her tight schedule to drive her kids to the physician’s office for evaluation of common childhood ailments, such as sore throats or rashes. These short office visits can take several hours out of her day with travel and wait-time. How can technology enable improved management of routine medical issues in a more convenient home or community setting?

  5. Chronic Disease Management: An 82-year-old widower with hypertension, diabetes, congestive heart failure and arthritis lives alone and wishes to remain independent in his home as long as possible. He is becoming increasingly home-bound and socially isolated. How can technology enable continuous collaborative management of chronic disease by patient and care team, including medication management. How can technology–enabled social networks for peer support and care coordination be leveraged?

  6. Design Your Own Primary Care Need: Using your own personal experience, describe a primary care scenario and the technology challenge your proposal seeks to solve.

Bookmark and Share

 

PAST WINNERS AND FINALISTS

2014 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists

$150,000
First Prize

James Dieffenderfer, a graduate student at North Carolina State University, Their project “VitalFlo” Spirometer Technology involved developing a very low-cost, compact, handheld spirometer, with high dynamic range, that communicates to a cell phone and server to enable a complete ecosystem for patient, caregiver, and physician to collaborate in the management of asthma or COPD.

$100,000
Second Prize

Kevin Colbert, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University for the project HemoGlobe: Community-based, Non-invasive Screening Device for Maternal Anemia in the Developing World. Their innovative technology is a noninvasive, low-cost, telemedicine-enabled hemoglobinometer, with the potential to shift the paradigm for anemia screening in under-resourced areas of the world. It can allow community health workers to appropriately counsel pregnant women on needed actions.

$50,000
Third Prize

Mao-Chi Weng, Boston University
Developing a mHealth Platform for Primary Care Behavioral Interventions

Finalist

Clarence Chen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
A “Smart”, Cloud-Based Network of Systems for Medical Data Integration and Response

Finalist

Jonathan Fajardo Cortes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
An Innovative, Smartphone NFC Powered, Wearable Battery-Free Biosensor for Real Time Monitoring of Diabetes

Finalist

Kamran Moradi, Florida International University
Blood Lipid Profiling in an Acoustic-Driven Portable Lab-on-Chip Device

Finalist

Xinyu Song, Washington University in St. Louis
An Accessible, Low-Cost platform for Automated Diagnosis of Hearing and Speech Disorders

Finalist

Mariko Wakabayashi, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Gamifying Health Data Collection

Finalist

Brian Westbrook, North Carolina State University
Airia – Personal Air Quality Monitor


2013 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists

$150,000
First Prize

Andrew Brimer and Abigail Cohen, Washington University in St. Louis, for their innovative low-cost spirometer. It offers unique personalized capabilities for asthma patients to use in proactively managing their respiratory challenges. The sensor offers this superior performance in a rugged, compact format with no moving parts. Associated software converts the acquired data into formats of direct real-time help to the patient as well as with longer-term value for their primary-care team’s decision processes.

$100,000
Second Prize

Sylvia Natividad, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley for a unique and promising new approach for cell sorting of blood samples. The most immediate application is for HIV patients managing their medications in limited-resource settings. Her technology requires no electrical power and utilizes very low-cost disposables to easily establish CD4+ cell counts from small samples.

$50,000
Third Prize

Allen Cheng, a graduate student at MIT, leads the team for their sophisticated and clever design for an automated medication dispenser for patient use at home. Their system employs novel human-factors engineering, directed at the formidable challenges patients face if they require multiple medications with varying daily time schedules. Clever mechanical design deals with dispensing a variety of pills with high reliability according to the prescribed protocols.

Finalist

Alexander Abraham and Brian Cummins (co-leaders), Texas A&M University: “An Innovative Implantable Biosensor for Continuous Blood-Glucose Monitoring”

Finalist

Andrew Brimer and Abigail Cohen (co-leaders), Washington University in St. Louis: “Low-Cost Spirometer Designed to Revolutionize Asthma Management via Patient Empowerment”

Finalist

Allen Cheng, MIT: “Smart Automated Medication Dispenser: Driving Medical Adherence through Patient-Inspired Engineering”

Finalist

Anmol Chopra, Johns Hopkins University: “Rapid MDR-TB Diagnostic for Peripheral Facilities in the Developing World”

Finalist

Hasitha Dharmasiri, Rice University: “mobileSpiro: A Portable System for Accurate, User-Friendly Spirometry”

Finalist

Nga Ho, Boston University: “A highly sensitive, point-of-care, multiplexed virus-detection platform for HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C”

Finalist

Guillermo Monroy, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: “Quantitative Depth-Resolved Otoscopy”

Finalist

Sylvia Natividad, University of California, Berkeley: “A Novel, Low-Cost Approach to Magnetic Cell Sorting for HIV Monitoring”

Finalist

Jacob Trueb, Boston University: “Microchip Cartridge for Point-of-Care Allergy Diagnostics”

Finalist

Shawn Wen, MIT: “PortaTherm: A Novel, Electricity-free Typhoid and Paratyphoid Diagnostic System for Resources-Limited Primary Healthcare Settings”

» Read 2013 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists Announcement

2012 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists

$150,000
First Prize

Jason Boggess and Everett Lawson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Media Lab, in collaboration with Di Wu and Siddharth Khullar
Project Title: “Fast Retinal Imaging for Diverse Screening via Binocular Coupling”

$100,000
Second Prize

Mozziyar Etemadi, University of California, San Francisco, in collaboration with Kendra Johnson
Project Title: "A New Cloud-Enabled Technology for Monitoring Heart Failure at Home"

$50,000
Third Prize

(Two projects tied and split award)

Daniel DeDora, State University of New York, Stony Brook, in collaboration with Sayan Mullick Chowdhury, Nicholas Pallotta, Atulya Prasad, Aleks Klimas and Jon Yahav
Project Title: “GlucoREAD Patch: A Novel Non-invasive Continuous Glucose Sensor Using Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and an Optical Probe”

Monika Weber, Yale University, in collaboration with, Brian Goldstein, Phillip McCown, Luye Mary Mu, Kara Brower and Shivang Patel
Project Title: “Alpha-Screener: Rapid Pathogen Detection and Antimicrobial Test”
Finalist

Omid Akhavan, Johns Hopkins University, in collaboration with Luis Soenksen
Project Title: “Innovistics Point-of-Care Fever Differential Diagnostic Tool"

Finalist

Jason Boggess, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in collaboration with Everett Lawson, Di Wu and Siddharth Khullar
($150,000 First Prize Winner)
Project Title: “Fast Retinal Imaging for Diverse Screening via Binocular Coupling”

Finalist

Daniel DeDora, State University of New York, Stony Brook, in collaboration with Sayan Mullick Chowdhury, Nicholas Pallotta, Atulya Prasad, Aleks Klimas and Jon Yahav
(Tied for $50,000 Third Prize and split award)
Project Title: “GlucoREAD Patch: A Novel Non-invasive Continuous Glucose Sensor Using Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and an Optical Probe”

Finalist

N. Gozde Durmus, Brown University, in collaboration with Kim Kummer and Erik Taylor
Project Title: “Using Nano-material Science to Inhibit Medical Device Infections”

Finalist

Mozziyar Etemadi, University of California, San Francisco, in collaboration with Kendra Johnson
($100,000 Second Prize Winner)
Project Title: "A New Cloud-Enabled Technology for Monitoring Heart Failure at Home"

Finalist

Raymond Kozikowski, University of Florida, in collaboration with Sarah E. Smith and Jennifer A. Lee
Project Title: “Differential Laser-Induced Perturbation Spectroscopy: A New Fluorescence Technique for Enhanced Non-Invasive Detection and Staging of Oral Cancers”

Finalist

Margo Monroe, Boston University, in collaboration with Alex Reddington, Jacob Trueb, and Ahmet Tuysuzoglu
Project Title: “POC Instrument for Highly Sensitive, Quantitative, and Multiplexed Allergy Diagnostics in Whole Blood”

Finalist

Guillermo L. Monroy, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaignin collaboration with Cac Nguyen, Nathan Shemonski and Shuo Yuan
Project Title: Project Title: “Primary Care Imaging”

Finalist

Eric Salm, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, in collaboration with Gregory Damhorst, Brian Dorvel, and Carlos Duarte
Project Title: “Integrated ‘Lab-on-a-Transistor’: Droplet-Based Polymerase Chain Reaction with Electrical Detection"

Finalist

Monika Weber, Yale University, in collaboration with, Brian Goldstein, Phillip McCown, Luye Mary Mu, Kara Brower and Shivang Patel
(Tied for $50,000 Third Prize and split award)
Project Title: “Alpha-Screener: Rapid Pathogen Detection and Antimicrobial Test”

» Read 2012 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists Announcement

2011 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists

$150,000
First Prize

George Daaboul, Boston University
“Rapid Label Free Multi-Pathogen Diagnostic Platform with Multi-Parameter Single Virus Detection for Point of Care Setting”

$100,000
Second Prize

Elliot Swart, Yale University
“Low Cost Scanner for Monitoring Shape, Color, and Volume Characteristics of Melanocytic Nevi”

$50,000
Third Prize
Melodie Benford, Texas A&M University
“An Innovative Point-of-Care Blood Biomarker Device for Diagnosing Heart Attacks"
Finalist

Brian Bell Jr., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“GetWell: Innovative Web-Based Tool to Address Health Literacy"

Finalist

Pablo Bello, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“Somnus: Sleep Diagnostics Shirt”

Finalist

Melodie Benford, Texas A&M University
($50,000 Third Prize Winner)
“An Innovative Point-of-Care Blood Biomarker Device for Diagnosing Heart Attacks"

Finalist

Yoonju Cho, Johns Hopkins University
“Noninvasive Measurement of Central Venous Pressure for Primary Care Environments”

Finalist

George Daaboul, Boston University
($150,000 First Prize Winner)
“Rapid Label Free Multi-Pathogen Diagnostic Platform with Multi-Parameter Single Virus Detection for Point of Care Setting”

Finalist

Matt Dubach, Northeastern University
“Lighting Up Diagnostics: Continuous Monitoring of Electrolyte Imbalances”

Finalist

Kejia Li, Kansas State University
“Everyday Carry Wireless Health Monitor with Customizable Surface Components”

Finalist

Asanterabi Malima, Northeastern University
“Highly Sensitive Micron Scale In-Vivo Biosensor for Multiple Biomarker Detection”

Finalist

Elliot Swart, Yale University
($100,000 Second Prize Winner)
“Low Cost Scanner for Monitoring Shape, Color, and Volume Characteristics of Melanocytic Nevi”

Finalist

John Waldeisen, University of California, Berkeley
“Self-Powered Blood Coagulation Chip for INR Value and Hematocrit Determination”

» Read 2011 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists Announcement

2010 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists

$150,000
First Prize

Mark Hartman, Cornell University
"Rapid Multiplexed Detection of Pathogens with DNA Nanobarcodes"

$100,000
Second Prize

George Lewis, Cornell University
"Wearable Low-Intensity Ultrasound Therapy for Osteoarthritis: Technology Development and Clinical Evaluation"

$50,000
Third Prize
Ming-Zher Poh, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
"Webcam-based Technology for Non-contact, Multi-Parameter Physiological Measurements"
Finalist Peter Backeris, Stevens Institute of Technology
"Digital Triage Assistant"
Finalist Jonathan Baran, University of Wisconsin Madison
"EMRViz: A Patient-Centered, Problem-Oriented EMR Visualization Package"
Finalist

Ryan Chang, Johns Hopkins University
"Invention of Non-Invasive Method and Apparatus to Deliver Diagnostic Devices into the Gastrointestinal Tract"

Finalist Nicholas Chen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"Improving Everyday Health Through Continuous Personal Instrumentation"
Finalist Mark Hartman, Cornell University
($150,000 First Prize Winner)
"Rapid Multiplexed Detection of Pathogens with DNA Nanobarcodes"
Finalist Syed Imaad, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"Health Diagnostic Compact Disc (HDCD)"
Finalist George Lewis, Cornell University
($100,000 Second Prize Winner)
"Wearable Low-Intensity Ultrasound Therapy for Osteoarthritis: Technology Development and Clinical Evaluation"
Finalist Debkishore Mitra, University of California Berkeley
"Sepsis Diagnostics Using iMDs"
Finalist Muzaffer Yalgin Ozsecen, Northeastern University
"Synchronized Blood Pressure Measurement Device"
Finalist Ming-Zher Poh, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($50,000 Third Prize Winner)
"Webcam-Based Technology for Non-Contact, Multi-Parameter Physiological Measurements"
» Read 2010 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists Announcement

2009 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalists

$150,000
First Prize

John Moore, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“Collaborative Technology for Primary Care: Teamwork Anywhere at Any Time”

$100,000
Second Prize

Matthew Connor, Princeton University
“iAbetics Web 2.0 Diabetes Management System”

$50,000
Third Prize

(Two projects tied and split award)

Richard Henrikson, University of California, Berkeley
“Versatile, Rapid and Inexpensive Molecular Detection Through Modular Aptazyme-Mediated Signal Transduction in a Microfluidic Device”

Ming Jack Po, Columbia University
“Therapeutic Gaming for Autistic Children”

Finalist Brant Chee, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
“Automation Extraction of Drug Regimens and Outcomes from Health Messages”
Finalist Winnie Cheng, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“My Medical Elephant; Improving Medical History Reliability”
Finalist

Matthew Connor, Princeton University
($100,000 Second Prize Winner)
Title: “iAbetics Web 2.0 diabetes management system.”

Finalist Sanna Gaspard, Carnegie Mellon University
“Development of a Diagnostic Instrument for Early-Stage Pressure Ulcers (Bed Sores)”
Finalist Richard Henrikson, University of California, Berkeley
(Tied for $50,000 Third Prize and split award)
“Versatile, rapid and inexpensive molecular detection through modular aptazyme-mediated signal transduction in a microfluidic device.”
Finalist Sarah Jeffords, Texas A & M University
“Digital Camera-Coupled Ophthalmoscope”
Finalist Erez Lieberman, Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology program
“iShoe Insole”
Finalist John Moore, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
($150,000 First Prize Winner)
“Collaborative Technology for Primary Care: Teamwork Anywhere at A ny Time”
Finalist Ming Jack Po, Columbia University
(Tied for $50,000 Third Prize and split award)
“Therapeutic Gaming for Autistic Children”
Finalist Kurt Qing, Northwestern University
“KMC ApneAlert”
» Read 2009 Top Three Winners and Ten Finalist Announcement

Bookmark and Share

 

Integrated Clinical EnvironmentsNeuroHealth, PTSD & TBI Industry I Foundation Engagement Homebase & Warfighter CareAccelerator

CIMIT does not rate, endorse, recommend or prescribe any products, procedures or services. Subscribe to CIMIT News in RSS

Contact the Webmaster Site Acknowledgements Copyright © 2011 CIMIT. All rights reserved. site map linking policy privacy