These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

335 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14657434)

  • 1. Grants, politics, and the NIH.
    Drazen JM; Ingelfinger JR
    N Engl J Med; 2003 Dec; 349(23):2259-61. PubMed ID: 14657434
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Peer review reviewed.
    Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7159):115. PubMed ID: 17851475
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Federal work force. Can outsiders do better in managing NIH grants?
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2003 Mar; 299(5614):1823. PubMed ID: 12649448
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Biomedical politics. NIH roiled by inquiries over grants hit list.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2003 Oct; 302(5646):758. PubMed ID: 14593135
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Shortening of NIH RO1 grant applications: your response is important.
    Nairn RS; Sweasy JB
    DNA Repair (Amst); 2007 Jan; 6(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 17157082
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Research funding: peer review at NIH.
    Scarpa T
    Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):41. PubMed ID: 16400135
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Two facets of peer review and the proper role of study sections.
    Lenard J
    Account Res; 2006; 13(3):277-83. PubMed ID: 17124762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. NIH needs a makeover.
    Dey SK
    Science; 2009 Aug; 325(5943):944. PubMed ID: 19696331
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Revamp for NIH grants.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7182):1035. PubMed ID: 18305502
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. NIH budget. Peer review under stress.
    Miller G; Couzin J
    Science; 2007 Apr; 316(5823):358-9. PubMed ID: 17446364
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer review at National Institutes of Health: small steps forward.
    Johnston SC; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2008 Nov; 64(5):A15-7. PubMed ID: 19067350
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Biomedical funding. NIH keeps grants staff but braces for change.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2004 Jan; 303(5657):451. PubMed ID: 14739431
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. NIH pilots faster feedback for grant resubmissions.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 1997 Oct; 389(6654):898. PubMed ID: 9353109
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Point: Statistical analysis in NIH peer review--identifying innovation.
    Kaplan D
    FASEB J; 2007 Feb; 21(2):305-8. PubMed ID: 17267383
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cautious welcome to NIH peer review reforms.
    Gavaghan H
    Nature; 1994 May; 369(6478):269. PubMed ID: 8183356
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. NIH streamlines research grants process.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 1998 Jul; 394(6691):306. PubMed ID: 9690459
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Rethinking grant review.
    Nat Neurosci; 2008 Feb; 11(2):119. PubMed ID: 18227790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Biomedical research. NIH plans new grants for innovative minds.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2003 Aug; 301(5635):902. PubMed ID: 12920271
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. NIH: gearing up for the twenty-first century.
    Baldwin W; McCardle P
    Physiologist; 1997 Jun; 40(3):89, 91-3. PubMed ID: 9230629
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. NIH consultant finds little evidence of bias against clinical researchers.
    Brainard J
    Chron High Educ; 2005 Mar; 51(28):A23. PubMed ID: 15835080
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.