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 *

179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20961441)

  • 1. Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives.
    Schroter S; Groves T; Højgaard L
    BMC Med; 2010 Oct; 8():62. PubMed ID: 20961441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.
    Abdoul H; Perrey C; Amiel P; Tubach F; Gottot S; Durand-Zaleski I; Alberti C
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(9):e46054. PubMed ID: 23029386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey.
    Gallo SA; Thompson LA; Schmaling KB; Glisson SR
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2020 Apr; 26(2):761-782. PubMed ID: 31359327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in France.
    Abdoul H; Perrey C; Tubach F; Amiel P; Durand-Zaleski I; Alberti C
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(4):e35247. PubMed ID: 22496913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice.
    Meadmore K; Fackrell K; Recio-Saucedo A; Bull A; Fraser SDS; Blatch-Jones A
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(11):e0239757. PubMed ID: 33151954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The Integration of Sex and Gender Considerations Into Biomedical Research: Lessons From International Funding Agencies.
    White J; Tannenbaum C; Klinge I; Schiebinger L; Clayton J
    J Clin Endocrinol Metab; 2021 Sep; 106(10):3034-3048. PubMed ID: 34137862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Researcher, research thyself? Mapping the landscape of canine health and welfare research funding provided by UK not-for-profit organisations from 2012-2022.
    Skipper AM; Packer RMA; O'Neill DG
    PLoS One; 2024; 19(5):e0303498. PubMed ID: 38781269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Adopting recommendations for implementing patient involvement in cancer research: a funder's approach.
    Costa Alencar AB; Selig WKD; Geissler J; Bereczky T; Ubide A; Haerry D; Stephens R; Behan V
    Res Involv Engagem; 2023 Mar; 9(1):6. PubMed ID: 36859346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A Community-Academic Partnered Grant Writing Series to Build Infrastructure for Partnered Research.
    King KM; Pardo YJ; Norris KC; Diaz-Romero M; Morris D; Vassar SD; Brown AF
    Clin Transl Sci; 2015 Oct; 8(5):573-8. PubMed ID: 26365589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals.
    Fogelholm M; Leppinen S; Auvinen A; Raitanen J; Nuutinen A; Väänänen K
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jan; 65(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 21831594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?
    Guthrie S; Ghiga I; Wooding S
    F1000Res; 2017; 6():1335. PubMed ID: 29707193
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The art of obtaining grants.
    Devine EB
    Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2009 Mar; 66(6):580-7. PubMed ID: 19265188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond.
    Gerhardus A; Becher H; Groenewegen P; Mansmann U; Meyer T; Pfaff H; Puhan M; Razum O; Rehfuess E; Sauerborn R; Strech D; Wissing F; Zeeb H; Hummers-Pradier E
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2016 Jun; 14(1):43. PubMed ID: 27297230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance.
    Gallo SA; Schmaling KB
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(8):e0273813. PubMed ID: 36026494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
    Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. It's money! Real-world grant experience through a student-run, peer-reviewed program.
    Dumanis SB; Ullrich L; Washington PM; Forcelli PA
    CBE Life Sci Educ; 2013; 12(3):419-28. PubMed ID: 24006391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Characteristics and Outcomes of Research Funded by the American Head and Neck Society Foundation.
    Liu JC; Kupferman M; Kraus D
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2020 Dec; 146(12):1120-1124. PubMed ID: 33119087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study.
    Herbert DL; Graves N; Clarke P; Barnett AG
    BMJ Open; 2015 Jul; 5(7):e008380. PubMed ID: 26137884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Relationship Between OREF Grants and Future NIH Funding Success.
    Hegde V; Johansen D; Park HY; Zoller SD; Hamad C; Bernthal NM
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2017 Aug; 99(16):e87. PubMed ID: 28816904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.