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 *

172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16409886)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques.
    Magua W; Zhu X; Bhattacharya A; Filut A; Potvien A; Leatherberry R; Lee YG; Jens M; Malikireddy D; Carnes M; Kaatz A
    J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2017 May; 26(5):560-570. PubMed ID: 28281870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.
    Pier EL; Brauer M; Filut A; Kaatz A; Raclaw J; Nathan MJ; Ford CE; Carnes M
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 Mar; 115(12):2952-2957. PubMed ID: 29507248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A quantitative linguistic analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques from investigators at one institution.
    Kaatz A; Magua W; Zimmerman DR; Carnes M
    Acad Med; 2015 Jan; 90(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 25140529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Associations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health.
    Lauer MS; Doyle J; Wang J; Roychowdhury D
    Elife; 2021 Apr; 10():. PubMed ID: 33847562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

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

  • 17. Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?
    Kaatz A; Lee YG; Potvien A; Magua W; Filut A; Bhattacharya A; Leatherberry R; Zhu X; Carnes M
    Acad Med; 2016 Aug; 91(8):1080-8. PubMed ID: 27276003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Sample size and precision in NIH peer review.
    Kaplan D; Lacetera N; Kaplan C
    PLoS One; 2008 Jul; 3(7):e2761. PubMed ID: 18648494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.