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 *

331 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14970062)

  • 1. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research.
    Kotchen TA; Lindquist T; Malik K; Ehrenfeld E
    JAMA; 2004 Feb; 291(7):836-43. PubMed ID: 14970062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Funding for patient-oriented research. Critical strain on a fundamental linchpin.
    Williams GH; Wara DW; Carbone P
    JAMA; 1997 Jul; 278(3):227-31. PubMed ID: 9218670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Outcomes of National Institutes of Health peer review of clinical grant applications.
    Kotchen TA; Lindquist T; Miller Sostek A; Hoffmann R; Malik K; Stanfield B
    J Investig Med; 2006 Jan; 54(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 16409886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. New physician-investigators receiving National Institutes of Health research project grants: a historical perspective on the "endangered species".
    Dickler HB; Fang D; Heinig SJ; Johnson E; Korn D
    JAMA; 2007 Jun; 297(22):2496-501. PubMed ID: 17565084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. National institutes of health funding for surgical research.
    Mann M; Tendulkar A; Birger N; Howard C; Ratcliffe MB
    Ann Surg; 2008 Feb; 247(2):217-21. PubMed ID: 18216525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Trends in funding for research on pain: a report on the National Institutes Of Health grant awards over the years 2003 to 2007.
    Bradshaw DH; Empy C; Davis P; Lipschitz D; Dalton P; Nakamura Y; Chapman CR
    J Pain; 2008 Dec; 9(12):1077-87, 1087.e1-8. PubMed ID: 19038770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Growing pains for NIH grant review.
    Bonetta L
    Cell; 2006 Jun; 125(5):823-5. PubMed ID: 16751088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An analysis of preliminary and post-discussion priority scores for grant applications peer reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH.
    Martin MR; Kopstein A; Janice JM
    PLoS One; 2010 Nov; 5(11):e13526. PubMed ID: 21103331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH.
    Lauer MS; Nakamura R
    N Engl J Med; 2015 Nov; 373(20):1893-5. PubMed ID: 26559568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Enhancing NIH grant peer review: a broader perspective.
    Bonetta L
    Cell; 2008 Oct; 135(2):201-4. PubMed ID: 18957192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A correlation between National Institutes of Health funding and bibliometrics in neurosurgery.
    Venable GT; Khan NR; Taylor DR; Thompson CJ; Michael LM; Klimo P
    World Neurosurg; 2014; 81(3-4):468-72. PubMed ID: 24239737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. How Criterion Scores Predict the Overall Impact Score and Funding Outcomes for National Institutes of Health Peer-Reviewed Applications.
    Eblen MK; Wagner RM; RoyChowdhury D; Patel KC; Pearson K
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0155060. PubMed ID: 27249058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Why are peer review outcomes less favorable for clinical science than for basic science grant applications?
    Martin MR; Lindquist T; Kotchen TA
    Am J Med; 2008 Jul; 121(7):637-41. PubMed ID: 18589061
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Perspective: is NIH funding the "best science by the best scientists"? A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies.
    Costello LC
    Acad Med; 2010 May; 85(5):775-9. PubMed ID: 20520024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Trends in program project grant funding at the National Cancer Institute.
    Broder S; Cushing M
    Cancer Res; 1993 Feb; 53(3):477-84. PubMed ID: 8425180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity.
    Fang FC; Bowen A; Casadevall A
    Elife; 2016 Feb; 5():. PubMed ID: 26880623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Toward Independence: Resubmission Rate of Unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 Research Grant Applications Among Early Stage Investigators.
    Boyington JE; Antman MD; Patel KC; Lauer MS
    Acad Med; 2016 Apr; 91(4):556-62. PubMed ID: 26650674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Demystifying the NIH grant application process.
    Berg KM; Gill TM; Brown AF; Zerzan J; Elmore JG; Wilson IB
    J Gen Intern Med; 2007 Nov; 22(11):1587-95. PubMed ID: 17687616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Racial inequity in grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health.
    Taffe MA; Gilpin NW
    Elife; 2021 Jan; 10():. PubMed ID: 33459595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.