91

Student Spotlight: Geunyong Kim and Yonatan Morocz, BBME PhD Candidates, are awarded at the 91 Clinical Innovation Competition

Geunyong Kim and Yonatan Morocz, members of Professor David Juncker’s lab, alongside their teams, were awarded the Hakim Family Innovation Prize and the MI4 Innovation Prize at this year’s Clinical Innovation Competition, highlighting the successful translation of their research and training into real-world innovation.

Geunyong Kim and Yonatan Morocz, BME PhD Candidates

AwardeesGeunyong Kim (left) and Yonatan Morocz (right)


Geunyong Kimis in the final year of his PhD in the Biological and Biomedical Engineering (BBME) Program and was awardedtheHakim Family Innovation Prizefor his and his team’s innovation, Ubiqui-Dx[1].

[1] FromtheCLIC Website:Ubiqui-Dx:Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is treated by surgical resection, guided by intraoperative PTH (io-PTH) monitoring. However, current lab-based assays require 20–30 minutes per result, delaying decisions and limiting use in ambulatory settings. We propose a cartridge-based io-PTH test delivering quantitative whole-blood results in under five minutes. Built on Microfluidic Sieve and Detector (MFSD) technology, it enables rapid analyte capture and signal amplification without centralized labs.

Geunyong Kim, PhD Candidate, Biomedical Engineering, 91 - Scientific cofounder;

Antti Virtanen, Research Assistant, Biomedical Engineering, 91 - Ultra-Sensitive IA development;

Paul Chapman, President,BioHighwayAdvisors Canada Inc. - Cofounder, CEO;

David Juncker, Professor, Biomedical Engineering, 91 - Scientific cofounder, CSO

Yonatan Moroczis alsoin his final year of his PhD in theBiological and Biomedical Engineering (BBME) Programandwas awarded theMI4 Innovation Prize, for his andProf.Juncker’s innovation, AnemoSwab[2].

[2] From theCLIC Website: Diagnosis of respiratory infections is time critical, as treatments like those for influenza are effective only within short windows, and rapid detection helps limit transmission through isolation. Samples are typically collected via nasopharyngeal or anterior nasal swabs, which are invasive, uncomfortable and discourage frequent testing.AnemoSwabproposes a new method that captures sample material from exhaled aerosols present in breath using a small 3D printed device, theAnemoSwab.

Yonatan Morocz, PhD Candidate, Biomedical Engineering, 91;

David Juncker, Professor, Biomedical Engineering, 91 - Scientific cofounder, CSO


Geunyong Kim

In this student spotlight,Geunyong reflects on how theUbiqui-Dx innovationemerged, as well as the collaborative team behind its development,including ProfessorDavid Juncker(BME Chair), Antti Virtanen, and Paul Chapman.

Q:Congratulations on winning the Hakim Family Innovation Prize forUbiqui-Dx!To start, could you tell us about your academic and research journey, and howUbiqui-Dx first came about?

I completed my Bachelor’s andMaster’s degrees in Mechanical Engineeringin Korea,before moving to Canada to pursue a PhD in Biomedical Engineering in 2020, during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Because I was initially unable to come to Canada, due to travel restrictions, Ididn’tbegin working on what would eventually becomeUbiqui-Dx until March 2021. Like many research projects, theearly stagesinvolved a great deal of trial and error, and progress was not always straightforward.

Things began to come together in 2023 when we successfullydemonstrateda proof of conceptfor this project. At that point, the core design of the platform took shape, allowing me to focus on further characterization and optimization. Following these advances, we filed patent applications forthe technology.

In 2025, we received aBest Paper Award atmicroTAS,aninternational conference, which was incredibly encouraging. Havingthe technologyrecognized andvalidatedby others in the field gave us confidence in its potential for commercialization.

Following that momentum, we assembled a team and incorporatedUbiqui-Dx. As I prepare to graduate,I’mnow focused on advancing both the commercialization and Research & Development (R&D) efforts surrounding the assay platform.

This project has been the central focus of my PhD and will form a major part of my dissertation. It also builds directly on myprevioustraining in microfluidics from my Master’s, where I focused more on mechanical fluidics. In this work,I’veexpanded that foundation by integrating the assaycomponent.

Q: How did you form theUbiqui-Dx team?

After we filed the provisional patent, we started looking for someone to help take on the business side of thingswithin our team. David and I were primarily focused onthe science, and we wanted to bring in someone with strong business and commercialization experience.That’swhen weconnected withPaul Chapman. He was previously CEO of a successful digital assay company, and we discussed the opportunity with him, which led to him joining the team.We also brought in Antti Virtanen, who has over 18 years of experience in immunoassay development at Abbott. Hisexpertisehas been a huge addition to the team.Overall, David and I provide the scientific foundation through our work in the lab, and we’ve since built a team that complements that with strongexpertisein commercialization, industry, and business development.

Q:What challenge were you hoping to solvewith this project, and what makes your technology innovative?

Along-standinggoalin diagnostics isto develop assaysthatprovidespeed,lowcost,simplicity,andhighsensitivity. Existing technologies often require trade-offs: for example, lateral flow assays are fast and inexpensive but may lack sensitivity, whilepolymerase chain reaction (PCR)offers high sensitivity but is typically slower, more complex, and more costly.

With our platform, we wanted to address that gap. The most innovative aspect of the technology is anisoporousmembranecontainingapproximately 500,000 microchannels, each measuring 8 µm in diameter. While each pore carries only a small flow rate, together they createa very highoverall flow rate. As a sample passes through the membrane, analytes repeatedly collide with the engineered capture surface, allowing them to be captured efficiently and rapidly.

To me, this is the most exciting and powerful part ofthe technology. By accelerating analyte capture in this way, we can significantly reduce assay time whilemaintainingstrong performance. The total assay time isroughly fiveminutes, compared with around 15 minutes for many lateral flow assays. If successful, reducing diagnostic turnaroundtimes in this waycould have a meaningful impactinclinical settings, although further validation is still needed.

Importantly, the platform is alsohighly sensitive. In our studies, weobservedsensitivity levels comparable to PCR, which is encouraging because it suggests we may be able to bring both speed and sensitivity to the point of care through a compact, cartridge-based testing system.

At the moment, our work has focused on buffer-based samples in the laboratory.However, we are actively working toward testing blood samples, particularly for intraoperative parathyroid hormone (io-PTH) monitoring. Our goal is to evaluate the technology using blood samples collected in the operating room, and we are currently taking the steps needed to reach that stage.

For those interested in the technical details, you can read more about the platform in our preprint:

The preprint is easy tounderstandand should provide a betterunderstandingof how this platform works!

Q:What was your experienceparticipatingin the Clinical Innovation Competition, and how did you prepare for it?

Iwasn’tsure I felt completely ready for the competition. I wanted everything to be perfect and to feel fully prepared beforehand. ButIdon’tthink anyone ever feels entirely ready, andthat’sa normal part of the experience.

The competition was valuable because it involved not only the pitch competition itself, but also coaching beforehand, including one-on-one mentorship sessions. Through that process, we refined our pitch and learned how to communicate our innovation more effectively. During the competition, I also had the opportunity to see how other teams presented their ideas, which was inspiring and gave me new perspectives on how todemonstratethe value of an innovation to judges and stakeholders.

Looking back, I felt there were aspects of my pitch that I could have improved.It was the first time we had pitched this particular project, and my previous experience had been primarily with scientific presentations rather than business pitches.As a result, it was a significant learning experience. I gained a much better understanding of how innovation and entrepreneurship pitches differ from academic presentations, and I now feel much more prepared for similar opportunities in the future.

Q:What do you think helpedUbiqui-Dx stand out to the judges?

I think whathelpedUbiqui-Dx stand out was the technology itself and the value it brings to the diagnostics field. One of the key innovations is its ability to address the traditional trade-off between speed and sensitivity.Our approach challenges what has typically been considered possible and offers a new way of thinking about the diagnostic process.

I believe the judgesrecognized the significance of that advancement. In fact, one judge commented that the technology almost seemed too good to be true. However, we were able to support our claims with strong theoretical and analytical validation, as well as experimental evidence. Having that foundation helpeddemonstratethatthe innovationis not just an interesting idea, but one that is backed by promising results.

Q:How do you plan to use the Hakim Family Innovation Prize to further advance the development ofUbiqui-Dx?

This willprimarily support the optimization of PTH measurements within our platform. To date, our work has focused on model targets in the lab, and this funding will allow us to expand the assay development toward clinically relevant PTH detection.

We are also interested in exploring the feasibility of cartridge-basedtestdevelopment. The longer-term goal is to translate this assay platform into a cartridge format that could make the technology more accessible, enabling broader use beyond laboratory settings.

Q:How has this experience influenced your future researchor career goals?

I’mvery excitedabout continuing to work onUbiqui-Dx moving forward. Receiving recognition from both the scientific and business communities has been particularly meaningful, and it reinforces the potential of what we are building.With strong validation already in place, there are many opportunities ahead to further develop and translate the technology.

I’mworking toward completing my PhD this year and am currently in the thesis-writing stage. Balancing this alongside company-related work has been quite demanding, soI’mlooking forward to having more capacityfor this companyonce my PhD is completed.

This experience has helped me see a clearer path toward integrating scientific research with translational andinnovation-focused work.I’mexcited by the opportunity to shift from primarily academic research into a space that combines both scientific and entrepreneurial development.

Q:What advice would you give to students and trainees who are interested in translating their research into real-world innovation andparticipatingin competitions like this?

I just did it. Itwasn’teasy, but when I start something, Idon’tusually do heavy investigation into exactly what it will entail.I find that if I over-analyzeit upfront, I can become a bit detached from what I actually want to do.For me,it’smore about diving in and learning along the way.

At the beginning, I honestlydidn’tknow where it would all go. But I learned as I went, and I was fortunate to havestrong teammembers with experience who helped a lot, both in terms of teaching me and bringing me up to speed on the business and broader innovation side.

Ididn’thavebusinessexperience beforehand. In our team, others were the main drivers of that side of things, andI’vemainly servedas a scientific co-founder focused on the technology and the R&D.Working alongside colleagues with diverse expertise gave me valuable exposure to areas beyond my scientific training and helped me develop a much broader perspective on innovation andentrepreneurship.

For students who are mostly science-focused anddon’thave much exposure to the business side of innovation, I would say this is still a veryfeasiblepath.Youdon’tneed to have it all figured out in advance... you learn it bydoing.

Q:Do you have anygeneral adviceforyour fellowstudents?

At the start, it may feel like nothing in your project is working, but I would saydon’tgive up. Keep working to find solutions and stay self-critical in a constructive way.Keep trying different approaches, because when you look back, you’ll realize you’ve actually accomplished a lot over the course of your project and program.

CongratulationsGeunyong, and best of luck to you and your team with the future ofUbiqui-Dx!


Yonatan Morocz

In this student spotlight, Yonatan discusses the pathway that led to theAnemoSawbinnovation, as well as the ongoing process of testing andvalidatingthe technology in collaboration with his supervisor,Prof. Juncker.

Q: Firstand foremost,congratulations on winning the MI4 Innovation Prize forAnemoSwab!Could you tell us about your academic and research journeyprior tothe creation ofAnemoSwab?

I’vehad quitea long experiencewith research... itactually startedin high school, which I did in Boston. At the time, I was volunteering at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where we were working on intraoperative mass spectrometry. In cases involving cancer patients, we would analyze swabbed tissue samples from the brain during surgery to help inform real-time clinical decision-making.

After that, I moved to Montreal for my Undergraduate degree at 91 in Bioorganic Chemistry. That gave me a solid foundation, but I was always drawn to building things and exploring how ideas could be translated into something tangible. Following myundergrad, I did a six-month internship in computational chemistry at a contract research organization (CRO), where I worked on designing drug compounds for pancreatic cancer.After this, because I really enjoyed both designing and building things, and I wanted to integrate life sciencesin my work, I decided to pursue aMaster’s in Biomedical Engineering.

I joined David Juncker’s lab largely because of my interest in their work on 3D printing. Even before starting graduateschool, I had already bought my own 3D printer and was experimenting with it during the COVID-19 pandemic,designingand fabricating projects at home. That hands-on experience ended up beingreally usefulduring my Master’s, and it also set the stage for howAnemoSwabeventually came about.

Q:Can you tell us more aboutAnemoSwaband howthiscame about?

When I first joined the lab, this projectdidn’texist. I was initially planning to work on bioprinting organs, specifically 3D printing structures out of extracellular matrix to create organ-like systems, and I worked on that for about four months. However, since I started my PhD atthe tailend of the pandemic, aerosol-based transmission was a major area of interest. There were still many unanswered questions around how infectious individuals were, how superspreading events occurred, andoverallhow to better measure transmission risk. At the time, wedidn’thave strong systems in place to study this properly.

Around then, research wasemergingfrom Europe on portable aerosol sampling devices that could help estimate viral load and infectiousness. David showed me some of these papers, and we both becamevery interestedin the area. At that point, I was already a few months intomy work ina lab that focused on 3D printing and diagnostic devices, so it felt like a natural direction to explore how we could build on these developments.That’sreally when the project started to take shape, around January 2022.

Initially, we were interested in aerosol sampling as a more direct measurement compared to nasopharyngeal swabs, which were the standard for COVID testing at the time. Aerosol sampling has the advantage of capturing the actual transmission vector, which canprovidemore direct insight into how infectious someone is. That kind of information is useful not only for diagnostics, but also for public health decisions, like assessing transmission risk ordeterminingwhether healthcare workers should isolate.

At the same time, there was also a very practical issue:people disliked swabbing. Because of that, testing compliancewasn’talways ideal.So,we were also motivated to develop something non-invasive, something that would be as simple as breathing into a tube,similar toa breathalyzer, where the sample could then be used for testing.

Within a couple of months, we had our first prototypes, although they werevery farfrom thefinal version. The progress wasdefinitely notlinear... we would make advances, then hit setbacks, then move forward again. It was a long iterative process to get to where the technology is today.

We’vebeen working on this for almost five years now, so there has been a lot of science and engineering involved in bringing it to this stage. At the same time, people now tend to understand the general concept much more easily, largely because of the shared experienceswe’vehad as a society through COVID.

Q: When you were developing this innovation, did you have the idea that you would one day bring it into a competition like the Clinical Innovation Competition?Wasthis a goal for you?

Pretty early on, weidentifiedthat the technology was something we wanted to patent because it was novel, so it was implicit from the beginning that we believed it had value and could potentially be brought into settings like innovation competitions.That said, there were a lot ofups and downsalong the way, so at times that goal felt more tangible than at others. But overall, it was always at least partially in mind as we developed the work.

We filed a provisional patent in 2024, and we are nowin the process of enteringthe national phase, with the technology currently patent pending.

Q:What was your experienceparticipatingin the Clinical Innovation Competition, andwhat do you think helpedAnemoSwabstand out to the judges?

The competition involved a lot of work to familiarize myself with thedifferent aspects, particularly the business side, which was a learning experience for me. Itwasn’tmy first pitch competition, so I had already gained some experience over time. Initially, we lacked knowledge around the market and commercialization aspects, but through experience, and with support from the 91 Innovations + Partnerships Office and the Technology Transfer Office, we gradually started to gaina better understanding. That knowledge also became transferable across different competitions weparticipatedin.

In terms of what made our pitch stand out,I think one key factorwas that it was quite different from many of the other projects. A lot of the other teams were focused on AI-assisted clinical planning or management tools,whereaswe were one of the few teams with a physical diagnosticcomponent.

The innovation is also verytimelyand relevant in the context of disease transmission, especially with increased attention on emerging infectious diseases,like hantavirus,in the media. Understanding aerosol-based transmission is crucial for informing public health policy, particularly in how we think about the spread of new diseases.

In addition, we have intellectual property in place (patent pending), and a clinical studycomingsoon.I think the judges were able to see that this was a serious, well-developed project, and all of these elements came together into a strong overall package.

Q:How has this experience influenced your future research or career goals?

The project and competition haveshifted my perspective a bit. When I finished my work at the CROprior to my Master’s, I wasvery impressedby the resources and infrastructure they had, and I initially envisioned myself working in a company setting focused on R&D with that level of support. Now, I see things a bit differently. In the start-up space, even though there aresometimesfewer resources, there is a lot of room for innovation, and things move and evolve very quickly. That environment allows for a lot of flexibility to adapt tonew information, learn continuously, and iterate in realtime,which is something I find very appealing.

Q:What advice would you give to students and trainees who are interested in translating their research into real-world innovation andparticipatingin competitions like this?

I’ve done a number of innovation competitions, and I really think there is no downside to participating and pitching your idea.The onlyreal costis time, but what you gain in return, especiallyfeedback, is incredibly valuable. It forces you to think about aspects of your project you might not have considered before. For example, you might have a great technical solution, but if it is too costly or not scalable, it may not beviablein practice. That kind of feedback has really helped guide our own development process.

At the same time,you have to keeptrying.We have submitted a lot of applications, and the success ratein these competitions is typicallyquite low.There are many talented people with strong ideas, so you are competing against a lot of them. Because of that, youcan’tgive up.You just have to keep trying and keep improving along the way.

Q: Can you think of any modificationsyoumadeafter competing in otherinnovationcompetitions?

We'vechanged how we phrase what we provide and learned how to better communicate and market our innovation so that it resonates with different audiences. We now focus more on what will matter most to the people listening to the pitch. As a scientist, it did not come naturally to “sell” the work, since I tended to present things very critically. Over time, I realized I could adjust the way I present the product so that it is better received and more clearly understood by listeners.

I have also presented this work at conferences, student symposiums, and other venues beyond pitch competitions, and each of these experiences has provided different feedback that has helped us develop the innovation further. Through this,I have come to appreciate how important it is to synthesize information effectively and to communicate it in a way that is accessible to non-expert audiences.

Q:Is there anything else you would like to sharewith our readersor any advice for fellow students?

I feelvery fortunateto have a supervisor who actively encourages this kind of work and leads a lab with manypreviousstart-up projects. From the beginning, he saw the potential for patenting this and developing it into something beyond just a research project.Because of that,I think finding a supervisor who supports the direction you want to take and whose vision is aligned with yours is really important.

If you are at the start of your program and think you might onedaybe interested in entrepreneurship or innovation, I would encourage you to keep in mind the potential commercial value of your work. Do not be shy about bringing those ideas up with your supervisor early on.

Thank you, Yonatan, for sharing your insights, and congratulations on your CLICsuccess. We wish you all the best on the road ahead!

Back to top