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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21103331)

  • 1. An analysis of preliminary and post-discussion priority scores for grant applications peer reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH.
    Martin MR; Kopstein A; Janice JM
    PLoS One; 2010 Nov; 5(11):e13526. PubMed ID: 21103331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research.
    Kotchen TA; Lindquist T; Malik K; Ehrenfeld E
    JAMA; 2004 Feb; 291(7):836-43. PubMed ID: 14970062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Outcomes of National Institutes of Health peer review of clinical grant applications.
    Kotchen TA; Lindquist T; Miller Sostek A; Hoffmann R; Malik K; Stanfield B
    J Investig Med; 2006 Jan; 54(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 16409886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How Criterion Scores Predict the Overall Impact Score and Funding Outcomes for National Institutes of Health Peer-Reviewed Applications.
    Eblen MK; Wagner RM; RoyChowdhury D; Patel KC; Pearson K
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0155060. PubMed ID: 27249058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Structure and process of federal funding for AD research.
    Wells N; Hurley AC
    Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord; 1999; 13 Suppl 1():S117-9. PubMed ID: 10369531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques.
    Magua W; Zhu X; Bhattacharya A; Filut A; Potvien A; Leatherberry R; Lee YG; Jens M; Malikireddy D; Carnes M; Kaatz A
    J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2017 May; 26(5):560-570. PubMed ID: 28281870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A statistical model validating triage for the peer review process: keeping the competitive applications in the review pipeline.
    Vener KJ; Feuer EJ; Gorelic L
    FASEB J; 1993 Nov; 7(14):1312-9. PubMed ID: 8224604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada.
    Tamblyn R; Girard N; Qian CJ; Hanley J
    CMAJ; 2018 Apr; 190(16):E489-E499. PubMed ID: 29685909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Characterization of the peer review network at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health.
    Boyack KW; Chen MC; Chacko G
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(8):e104244. PubMed ID: 25119140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A quantitative linguistic analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques from investigators at one institution.
    Kaatz A; Magua W; Zimmerman DR; Carnes M
    Acad Med; 2015 Jan; 90(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 25140529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?
    Kaatz A; Lee YG; Potvien A; Magua W; Filut A; Bhattacharya A; Leatherberry R; Zhu X; Carnes M
    Acad Med; 2016 Aug; 91(8):1080-8. PubMed ID: 27276003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Perspective: is NIH funding the "best science by the best scientists"? A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies.
    Costello LC
    Acad Med; 2010 May; 85(5):775-9. PubMed ID: 20520024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer review: influence of internal and external reviewers and committees.
    Hodgson C
    Can J Cardiol; 1995 Nov; 11(10):864-8. PubMed ID: 7489524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Peer review of grant applications.
    Sekikawa A; Aaron DJ; Acosta B; Nishimura R; LaPorte RE
    Lancet; 1998 Sep; 352(9133):1064. PubMed ID: 9759777
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.