A multidisciplinary judging panel will recommend winners after evaluating submissions based on the following equally weighted criteria.

Phase 1 evaluation criteria

Performance

The degree to which the entrant demonstrates that a solution can or will accurately diagnose an active Lyme disease infection. This includes the credibility of explanation and the level of expected performance with regard to specificity and sensitivity, with data to support.

Technical maturity

The degree to which the solution has been developed with a rigorous scientific rationale grounded in credible existing research, preliminary testing, or other relevant forms of validation. This includes demonstrating an understanding of Lyme disease diagnostics and offering a credible explanation for how the solution overcomes known technical challenges in the field.

Clinical impact

The potential for the solution to integrate into new or existing clinical protocols and maintain performance across a range of patient populations. This includes a well-developed plan to engage clinical and patient stakeholders.

Population impact

The potential for the solution to improve population health, including its proposed or demonstrated accessibility, the extent to which entrants address equity in the design and implementation plans, and the opportunity for public health impact through improved data and surveillance.

Viability

The extent to which the entrant outlines an aggressive yet achievable development process, including a detailed development plan for prototyping, iteration, testing/validation, and evaluation of the diagnostic test(s) in future phases of the Competition and/or beyond, including a consideration of potential risks or unintended consequences.

Sustainability

The degree to which the entrant demonstrates scalability potential and provides a credible long-term plan for regulatory viability, market entry, business need, and the development of the test as a real-world product.

Innovation

The novelty and uniqueness of the solution, as well as its potential to advance the field of Lyme disease diagnostics and treatment as a whole, including opportunities to advance scientific understanding of Lyme disease spirochetes through contributions to the existing evidence base.

Phase 2 evaluation criteria

Performance

The degree to which the entrant has improved and/or further verified the proposed solution’s diagnostic performance (for example, sensitivity and specificity), which represents a meaningful improvement over currently available approaches.

Technical maturity

The degree to which the submission reflects a more rigorous and credible understanding of scientific mechanisms (for example, biological, chemical, and physical) underlying the proposed diagnostic approach, and addresses how the approach will be consistently replicated in real-world settings.

Clinical impact

The degree to which the submission further details a clear and credible understanding of how the proposed diagnostic will integrate into new or existing clinical protocols, and how the diagnostic has been optimized for a range of clinical settings and patient populations.

Population impact

The extent to which the entrant has engaged patients in design and development, and has demonstrably advanced the expected accessibility, equity, and public health impact of the proposed solution.

Viability

The extent to which the entrant has progressed against its plan for prototyping, iteration, testing, validation, and evaluation of its diagnostic test(s); refined and further detailed its ongoing plan; and enhanced its understanding of risks and risk mitigation.

Sustainability

The degree to which the entrant demonstrates scalability potential and provides a credible long-term plan for regulatory viability, market entry, business need, and development of the solution as a real-world product.

Innovation

The extent to which the entrant has shown meaningful learning through Phase 2 activities, including challenging its own assumptions and iterating based on results.