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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19861989)

  • 1. The NIH entitlement program.
    DeVita VT
    Nat Rev Clin Oncol; 2009 Nov; 6(11):613. PubMed ID: 19861989
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 3. Revamping NIH Study Sections.
    Lenard J
    Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):36. PubMed ID: 16400131
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 5. Peer review and new investigators.
    Taffe MA
    Science; 2006 Feb; 311(5762):775. PubMed ID: 16469900
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. National Institutes of Health. Zerhouni's parting message: make room for young scientists.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2008 Nov; 322(5903):834-5. PubMed ID: 18988813
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 8. Research funding: peer review at NIH.
    Scarpa T
    Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):41. PubMed ID: 16400135
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. American Idol and NIH grant review--redux.
    Munger K
    Cell; 2006 Nov; 127(4):661-2; author reply 664-5. PubMed ID: 17110320
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review at NIH: a conversation with CSR director Toni Scarpa.
    Scarpa T
    Physiologist; 2010 Jun; 53(3):65, 67-9. PubMed ID: 20550006
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. NIH needs a makeover.
    Dey SK
    Science; 2009 Aug; 325(5943):944. PubMed ID: 19696331
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Revamp for NIH grants.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7182):1035. PubMed ID: 18305502
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Making research accessible: National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access and PNAS open access policies.
    Cozzarelli NR
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2005 Apr; 102(15):5303. PubMed ID: 15809413
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Science policy. The NIH budget in the "postdoubling" era.
    Korn D; Rich RR; Garrison HH; Golub SH; Hendrix MJ; Heinig SJ; Masters BS; Turman RJ
    Science; 2002 May; 296(5572):1401-2. PubMed ID: 12029114
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

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

  • 18. Research agenda. Opportunities for research and NIH.
    Collins FS
    Science; 2010 Jan; 327(5961):36-7. PubMed ID: 20044560
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. NIH revises rules of conflict of interest of grant peer reviewers.
    Shalev M
    Lab Anim (NY); 2004 Mar; 33(3):15-6. PubMed ID: 15235618
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. National Institutes of Health. Changes in peer review target young scientists, heavyweights.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2008 Jun; 320(5882):1404. PubMed ID: 18556519
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.