I prioritize by mapping sessions to the specific holes in what I'm doing, not to general interest. One selection strategy that has worked best is reading the published abstracts of the presenter(s) prior to the conference, rather than just the session title.
That's important for the following reasons. Session titles are written by marketing teams. Abstracts are written by researchers. When reading the abstract, you will be able to determine what data will be presented, what types of specimens were used, and the size of the sample. I used this approach at the 2023 SOFT annual meeting to avoid four sessions of "urinalysis update" that were basically rehashing 2019 data and instead attend a smaller forensic toxicology panel on the variance of thresholds across different laboratory instrumentation using LC-MS/MS.
Let's now discuss the floor sessions, as they are neglected too much. Keynotes are accompanied by poster presentations. The majority of the visitors pass them by. But lab directors and lead researchers stand next to their work for two hours and will answer questions that never make it into published papers. I have received more useful information from half an hour of poster discussion than from an hour of plenary talk. If you're attending a big conference, then schedule it first before anything else gets in the way.
MG
MD
