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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25119140)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Imaging research and the reorganization of the NIH Center for Scientific Review.
    Alderson PO; Nagy EC
    Acad Radiol; 2002 Oct; 9(10):1237-40. PubMed ID: 12385517
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Scholarly productivity and national institutes of health funding of foundation for anesthesia education and research grant recipients: insights from a bibliometric analysis.
    Pagel PS; Hudetz JA
    Anesthesiology; 2015 Sep; 123(3):683-91. PubMed ID: 26114414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. NIH plans grant-review overhaul to reduce bias.
    Kozlov M
    Nature; 2022 Dec; 612(7941):602-603. PubMed ID: 36494447
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A correlation between National Institutes of Health funding and bibliometrics in neurosurgery.
    Venable GT; Khan NR; Taylor DR; Thompson CJ; Michael LM; Klimo P
    World Neurosurg; 2014; 81(3-4):468-72. PubMed ID: 24239737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Bibliometric measures and National Institutes of Health funding at colleges of osteopathic medicine, 2006-2010.
    Suminski RR; Hendrix D; May LE; Wasserman JA; Guillory VJ
    J Am Osteopath Assoc; 2012 Nov; 112(11):716-24. PubMed ID: 23139342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

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

  • 14. NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity.
    Fang FC; Bowen A; Casadevall A
    Elife; 2016 Feb; 5():. PubMed ID: 26880623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

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

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Careers in Science and Grant Administration: View from the National Institutes of Health.
    Zatz M; Dupere S
    Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol; 2018 Sep; 10(9):. PubMed ID: 30181194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.