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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19168745)

  • 1. NIH peer review reform--change we need, or lipstick on a pig?
    Fang FC; Casadevall A
    Infect Immun; 2009 Mar; 77(3):929-32. PubMed ID: 19168745
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. NIH weighs peer review changes.
    Lang L
    Gastroenterology; 2008 Feb; 134(2):380. PubMed ID: 18242202
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 4. Peer review at NIH.
    Osthus RC
    Physiologist; 2007 Oct; 50(5):185, 187. PubMed ID: 17990627
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Overhaul of peer review at NIH.
    Fusaro RM
    Lancet; 1999 Nov; 354(9190):1649. PubMed ID: 10560706
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

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

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Revamp for NIH grants.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7182):1035. PubMed ID: 18305502
    [No 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. Research funding: peer review at NIH.
    Scarpa T
    Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):41. PubMed ID: 16400135
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. NIH plans peer-review overhaul.
    Marshall E
    Science; 1997 May; 276(5314):888-9. PubMed ID: 9163031
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Shorter NIH grant form launches.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2010 Jan; 463(7277):12-3. PubMed ID: 20054365
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. NIH: grants revamp needs grounding in evidence.
    Hannun YA
    Nature; 2008 Apr; 452(7189):811. PubMed ID: 18421328
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Changes in NIH review procedures: strengths and weaknesses.
    Adler KB; Abraham E
    Am J Respir Crit Care Med; 2009 Aug; 180(3):197. PubMed ID: 19633152
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. NIH eyes sweeping reform of peer review.
    Agnew B
    Science; 1999 Nov; 286(5442):1074-6. PubMed ID: 10610519
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Counterpoint: Statistical analysis in NIH peer review--identifying innovation.
    Pederson T
    FASEB J; 2007 Feb; 21(2):309-10; discussion 311. PubMed ID: 17267384
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 20. International peer review improved Irish research rankings.
    O'Carroll C
    Nature; 2009 Aug; 460(7258):949. PubMed ID: 19693064
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.