Definition: Relevance assesses how well the abstract aligns with the overarching theme of the conference and its contribution to ALS research. Consider:
• Does the abstract address a critical issue in ALS research or clinical care?
• Does the research advance scientific knowledge or therapeutic strategies related to ALS?

Adjusting for Categories That Don’t Fit the Scoring System: consider whether the abstract’s contribution to the broader ALS field is clear. Does it offer value in terms of advancing understanding, enhancing awareness, or contributing to the patient or caregiver experience? Adjust your scoring based on how directly it contributes to ALS research, care, or policy.

Scoring Guidelines:
• 0 (No Relevance): Reject
• 1 (Poor Relevance): The abstract is off-topic or does not contribute meaningfully to ALS research or care.
• 2 (Limited Relevance): The abstract has some relevance but does not address a key issue in ALS research or care.
• 3 (Moderate Relevance): The abstract addresses an important issue, but the relevance could be more clearly defined or focused.
• 4 (Good Relevance): The abstract is highly relevant and contributes to advancing ALS research or care in a significant way.
• 5 (Excellent Relevance): The abstract is central to the conference theme and represents a major contribution to ALS research or clinical care.