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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17568705)

  • 1. Mentors of tomorrow.
    Nature; 2007 Jun; 447(7146):754. PubMed ID: 17568705
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Pre-peer review, peer review, and post-peer review: three areas with potential for improvement.
    Stang A; Poole C; Schmidt-Pokrzywniak A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Apr; 61(4):309-10. PubMed ID: 18313552
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
    Saper CB
    Exp Neurol; 2009 Mar; 216(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 19217967
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer-review: a citadel under siege.
    Apuzzo ML
    Neurosurgery; 2008 Nov; 63(5):821. PubMed ID: 19005370
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 6. Does peer review at the US National Institutes of Health need modifying?
    Reprod Biomed Online; 2008 Mar; 16(3):390. PubMed ID: 18339262
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Editorial. Comments and criticisms.
    Frank D; Caldamone A; Mouriquand P
    J Pediatr Urol; 2009 Aug; 5(4):253. PubMed ID: 19596115
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Judging the judges: keeping objectivity in peer review.
    Aisen ML
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 2002; 39(1):vii-viii. PubMed ID: 11926332
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Experts plan to reclaim the web for pop science.
    Butler D
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7076):516-7. PubMed ID: 16452941
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review reviewed.
    Nature; 2002 May; 417(6885):103. PubMed ID: 12000917
    [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. Evidence & Methods: a new addition to The Spine Journal.
    Weiner BK
    Spine J; 2009 Jun; 9(6):433. PubMed ID: 19364679
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Emerging Investigators issue.
    Mol Biosyst; 2008 Jun; 4(6):465. PubMed ID: 18493638
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reviewers peering from under a pile of 'omics' data.
    Nicholson JK
    Nature; 2006 Apr; 440(7087):992. PubMed ID: 16625173
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Fumes from the spleen.
    Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 1996 Jul; 10(3):264-7. PubMed ID: 8822769
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. We need more insight into what's worth paying for.
    Gunn W
    Nature; 2009 Mar; 458(7236):281. PubMed ID: 19295585
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Where did the scientific method go?
    Noseda M; McLean GR
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):28-9. PubMed ID: 18183010
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Response to Where did the scientific method go?
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):29. PubMed ID: 18183012
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
    Naqvi KR
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A reprogramming rush.
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7186):388. PubMed ID: 18368078
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.