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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17124762)

  • 21. Biomedical funding. At NIH, two strikes policy is out.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2014 Apr; 344(6182):350. PubMed ID: 24763564
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A metareview at the NIH.
    Nat Med; 2008 Apr; 14(4):351. PubMed ID: 18391922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. MRC commitments.
    Harvey SC
    Science; 1998 Feb; 279(5353):967-8. PubMed ID: 9490479
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. National Institutes of Health. Grants 'below payline' rise to help new investigators.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2009 Sep; 325(5948):1607. PubMed ID: 19779159
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Nurturing the biomedical research enterprise.
    Wyngaarden JB
    P R Health Sci J; 1986 Aug; 5(2):43-50. PubMed ID: 3823360
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Management operations of the National Cancer Institute that influence the governance of science.
    Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1984 May; 64():1-139. PubMed ID: 6749243
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Peer review: NIH urged to streamline bids..
    Gavaghan H
    Nature; 1994 Jul; 370(6486):170-1. PubMed ID: 8028655
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Research funding. NIH in the post-doubling era: realities and strategies.
    Zerhouni EA
    Science; 2006 Nov; 314(5802):1088-90. PubMed ID: 17110557
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 31. Biomedical research. Stimulus funding elicits a tidal wave of 'challenge grants'.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2009 May; 324(5929):867. PubMed ID: 19443754
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. U.S. science policy. Risky business.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2004 Oct; 306(5694):220-1. PubMed ID: 15472055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Biomedical politics. Sex studies 'properly' approved.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2004 Feb; 303(5659):741. PubMed ID: 14764836
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Italy outsources peer review to NIH.
    Van Noorden R
    Nature; 2009 Jun; 459(7249):900. PubMed ID: 19536229
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Biomedical politics. Sex studies denounced, NIH's peer-review process defended.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2003 Nov; 302(5647):966-7. PubMed ID: 14605337
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. National Institutes of Health. Panel weighs starter R01 grants.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2004 Jun; 304(5679):1891. PubMed ID: 15218117
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Commentary: new guidelines for NIH peer review: improving the system or undermining it?
    Spiegel AM
    Acad Med; 2010 May; 85(5):746-8. PubMed ID: 20520019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. NIH panel to monitor peer review in action.
    Taylor R
    Nature; 1995 Jun; 375(6531):438. PubMed ID: 7777040
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.