Abstract: Disclosed are some implementations of systems, apparatus, methods and computer program products for facilitating the validation of assessments in an eLearning environment. Validation is facilitated using an assessment definition that includes one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) and identifies, for each of the APIs, a corresponding plugin and handler. Each of the APIs is configurable to obtain at least one user response to a corresponding challenge task via the corresponding plugin and each handler is configurable to validate the user response returned via the corresponding API. The accuracy of the user response to each challenge task is determined via the corresponding handler identified within the assessment definition. APIs can include a third party API, enabling validation of user responses across different systems. The user's knowledge may be assessed based upon the accuracy of the user's responses to all of the challenge tasks.

Abstract: Disclosed are some implementations of systems, apparatus, methods and computer program products for implementing an electronic learning (eLearrning) system. In some implementations, an indication of a user selection by a first user of electronic learning content of an electronic learning (eLearning) system is processed, where the electronic learning content includes a learning module. Learning module is initiated or resumed. The progress of the first user in relation to completion of the learning module is tracked. An unanswered question that pertains to the learning module and that has been submitted by a second user is identified based, at least in part, on the progress of the first user in relation to the completion of the learning module. The unanswered question is then provided via a web page of the learning module for presentation via a client device of the first user.

Abstract: Disclosed are some implementations of systems, apparatus, methods and computer program products for facilitating the validation of assessments in an eLearning environment. Validation is facilitated using an assessment definition that includes one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) and identifies, for each of the APIs, a corresponding plugin and handler. Each of the APIs is configurable to obtain at least one user response to a corresponding challenge task via the corresponding plugin and each handler is configurable to validate the user response returned via the corresponding API. The accuracy of the user response to each challenge task is determined via the corresponding handler identified within the assessment definition. APIs can include a third party API, enabling validation of user responses across different systems. The user's knowledge may be assessed based upon the accuracy of the user's responses to all of the challenge tasks.

Abstract: Disclosed are some implementations of systems, apparatus, methods and computer program products for facilitating the validation of assessments in an eLearning environment. Validation is facilitated using an assessment definition that includes one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) and identifies, for each of the APIs, a corresponding plugin and handler. Each of the APIs is configurable to obtain at least one user response to a corresponding challenge task via the corresponding plugin and each handler is configurable to validate the user response returned via the corresponding API. The accuracy of the user response to each challenge task is determined via the corresponding handler identified within the assessment definition. APIs can include a third party API, enabling validation of user responses across different systems. The user's knowledge may be assessed based upon the accuracy of the user's responses to all of the challenge tasks.

Abstract: Disclosed are some implementations of systems, apparatus, methods and computer program products for facilitating the validation of assessments in an eLearning environment. Validation is facilitated using an assessment definition that includes one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) and identifies, for each of the APIs, a corresponding plugin and handler. Each of the APIs is configurable to obtain at least one user response to a corresponding challenge task via the corresponding plugin and each handler is configurable to validate the user response returned via the corresponding API. The accuracy of the user response to each challenge task is determined via the corresponding handler identified within the assessment definition. APIs can include a third party API, enabling validation of user responses across different systems. The user's knowledge may be assessed based upon the accuracy of the user's responses to all of the challenge tasks.

Abstract: Disclosed are some implementations of systems, apparatus, methods and computer program products for implementing an electronic learning (eLearrning) system. In some implementations, an indication of a user selection by a first user of electronic learning content of an electronic learning (eLearning) system is processed, where the electronic learning content includes a learning module. Responsive to processing the indication of the user selection, the learning module is initiated or resumed by providing one or more of a plurality of content items of the learning module for presentation by the client device. The progress of the first user in relation to completion of the learning module is tracked. An unanswered question that pertains to the learning module and that has been submitted by a second user is identified based, at least in part, on the progress of the first user in relation to the completion of the learning module.

Abstract: Gamete donor selection includes receiving a specification including a phenotype of interest, receiving a genotype of a recipient and a plurality of genotypes of a respective plurality of donors, determining statistical information pertaining to the phenotype of interest based at least in part on different pairings of the genotype of the recipient and a genotype of a donor in the plurality of donors, and identifying a preferred donor among the plurality of donors, based at least in part on the statistical information determined.

Abstract: Gamete donor selection includes receiving a specification including a phenotype of interest, receiving a genotype of a recipient and a plurality of genotypes of a respective plurality of donors, determining statistical information pertaining to the phenotype of interest based at least in part on different pairings of the genotype of the recipient and a genotype of a donor in the plurality of donors, and identifying a preferred donor among the plurality of donors, based at least in part on the statistical information determined.