🩺 HOPPR — AI for Medical Imaging Workflows

Criterion 1 (Lowest Score) 2 3 4 (Highest Score)
Creativity Project is almost exactly the same, or worse, as previously existing imaging solutions; nothing new is being introduced. Project is similar to an existing imaging or AI workflow technology but adds a slight improvement/different feature. Project does not necessarily tackle problems in a unique way or select a new issue that hasn't been explored before. Original and specific to imaging. Can cite prior art. If it keeps irrelevant legacy patterns or closely mirrors existing tools, score here rather than 4. Project tackles a new/relevant imaging workflow problem with an innovative solution. Significant effort has been made towards setting the solution apart from existing solutions and solving for either a new problem, or solving an already‑tackled problem in a novel way.
Product Design (UI/UX) Project is difficult to use. Visual appearance or information design detracts from functionality. Good design principles are largely ignored. Project is usable, but confusing. Visual appearance and design principles seem like an afterthought. Accessibility and target audience were not considerations. Project is reasonably intuitive, fairly easy to use. Some areas may need an explanation but that info is provided either in the demo or description. Visual appearance is good but not exceptional. Product considers accessibility in design and is catered towards the target users (radiologists, techs, clinicians). Project is incredibly intuitive and user interaction is smooth. On every part of the user flow, it is clear what functionality is available and what the purpose is. A user manual is not necessary to understand how to use the product. Visual appearance is excellent and well thought‑out, following good design principles including hierarchy, contrast, and readable states. Product considers accessibility and clinical context in design and is catered towards the target audience.
Problem Definition Little to no effort in identifying and understanding a concrete imaging workflow problem and audience. General problem identification, but could be clearer in selecting a step in the workflow and audience. Satisfactory understanding of both. Seems like the product is stuffed into a problem or that the problem is created around the product, as opposed to the product serving an existing need or problem. Clear identification of a specific imaging problem and audience. There is a reasonable understanding of both the problem and audience while approaching the product. Product is built to address the problem rather than fitting a product into a problem, though it may only partially address the pain points. Clear identification of a specific imaging problem and audience. Evident that research was done and there is a reasonable understanding of both the problem and audience while approaching the product. Product is clearly built to address the problem rather than fitting a product into a problem. The pain points of the users are addressed and solved by the product. Team conducted or referenced some form of user research.
Impact Provides little to no benefit to the end user, or is not clear. Solution only partially addresses user pain points, but still attempts to deliver meaningful impact to the target audience for the product or need. Lacking in practicality. Meaningful impact for the end user. The problem and solutions are clearly defined. Solution is practical in context of the need or problem. Solution clearly addresses an existing imaging need. Makes meaningful and relevant impact to the end user (also identified) and has a positive outcome. User pain points are addressed and solved for. Aspects such as cost‑effectiveness, practicality, and time constraint are taken into account when presenting the solution. Team conducted or referenced some form of user research.

🌍 Build for the Ummah — Technical Track

Criterion 1 (Lowest Score) 2 3 4 (Highest Score)
Creativity Project is almost exactly the same, or worse, as previously existing technologies addressing the community; nothing new is being introduced. Project is similar to an existing technology but adds a slight improvement/different feature. Project does not necessarily tackle problems in a unique way or select a new issue that hasn't been explored before. Project is original and not generic. May reference existing solutions. This alone does not reduce the score, unless the solution preserves aspects that do not pertain to the stated community problem. Project tackles a new/relevant problem for the Ummah with an innovative solution. Significant effort has been made towards setting the solution apart from existing solutions and solving in a novel way.
Product Design (UI/UX) Project is difficult to use. Visual appearance detracts from functionality. Accessibility or cultural context is largely ignored. Project is usable, but confusing. Visual appearance and design principles seem like an afterthought. Accessibility and target audience were not considerations. Project is reasonably intuitive and fairly easy to use. Some areas may need an explanation but that info is provided either in the demo or description. Visual appearance is good but not exceptional. Product considers accessibility and is catered towards the target audience. Project is incredibly intuitive and user interaction is smooth. Flow makes purpose obvious at each step. Visual appearance is excellent and well‑thought‑out, following good design principles and considering accessibility and cultural context for the target audience.
Problem Definition Little to no effort in identifying and understanding a target audience and problem. General problem identification, but could be clearer in selecting a problem and target audience. Satisfactory understanding of both. Seems like the product is stuffed into a problem or that the problem is created around the product. Clear identification of a specific problem and target audience. Reasonable understanding of both the problem and audience while approaching the product. Product is built to address the problem rather than fitting a product into a problem, but may only partially address pain points. Clear identification of a specific problem and target audience. Evident that research was done and there is a reasonable understanding of both the problem and audience while approaching the product. Product addresses the pain points of users and solves the problem. Team conducted or referenced some form of user research.
Impact Provides little to no benefit to the end user, or is not clear. Solution only partially addresses user pain points, but still attempts to deliver meaningful impact to the target audience. Lacking in practicality. Meaningful impact to the end user. The problem and solutions are clearly defined. Solution is practical in context of the need or problem. Solution clearly addresses an existing problem or need. Makes meaningful and relevant impact to the end user (also identified) and has a positive outcome. User pain points are addressed and solved for. Considers cost‑effectiveness, practicality, and time constraints. Team conducted or referenced some form of user research.

💡 Pitch for Change — Non‑Technical Track

Criterion 1 (Lowest Score) 2 3 4 (Highest Score)
Creativity Project is almost exactly the same, or worse, as previously existing initiatives; nothing new is being introduced. Project is similar to an existing initiative but adds a slight improvement/different feature. Does not necessarily select a new issue that hasn't been explored before. Project is original and not generic. May reference existing programs; this alone is fine unless irrelevant aspects are preserved. Project tackles a new/relevant problem with an innovative proposal. Significant effort sets it apart from existing approaches and solves in a novel way.
Presentation Presentation is difficult to follow. Visuals or narrative detract from clarity. Audience cannot understand what the proposal does or why it matters. Presentation is understandable but confusing at times. Visual appearance seems like an afterthought. Key points require explanation outside the deck. Presentation is clear and fairly easy to follow. Some areas may need explanation, but the structure, visuals, and timing support comprehension. Presentation is clear, confident, and engaging. Narrative flow makes purpose obvious at every step. Visuals and storytelling are excellent.
Problem Definition Little to no effort in identifying and understanding a target audience and problem. General problem identification, but could be clearer in selecting a problem and target audience. Satisfactory understanding of both. Seems like the idea is fitted into a problem rather than serving an existing need. Clear identification of a specific problem and target audience. Reasonable understanding of both while approaching the proposal. May only partially address pain points. Clear identification of a specific problem and target audience. Evident that research was done; strong understanding of both problem and audience. Pain points are addressed and solved. Team conducted or referenced some form of user research.
Impact Provides little to no benefit to the end user, or is not clear. Solution only partially addresses pain points; attempts meaningful impact but lacks practicality. Meaningful impact for the end user. Outcomes and beneficiaries are clearly defined. Solution is practical. Solution clearly addresses an existing problem or need. Makes meaningful and relevant impact to the end user and has a positive outcome. Considers cost‑effectiveness, practicality, and time constraints. Team conducted or referenced some form of user research.