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 *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25184367)

  • 1. The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.
    Gallo SA; Carpenter AS; Irwin D; McPartland CD; Travis J; Reynders S; Thompson LA; Glisson SR
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(9):e106474. PubMed ID: 25184367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores.
    Lindner MD; Nakamura RK
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0126938. PubMed ID: 26039440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Use of Bibliometric Analysis to Assess the Scientific Productivity and Impact of the Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System Program, 2006-2012.
    Reaves EJ; Valle R; Chandrasekera RM; Soto G; Burke RL; Cummings JF; Bausch DG; Kasper MR
    Mil Med; 2017 May; 182(5):e1749-e1756. PubMed ID: 29087920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Prior publication productivity, grant percentile ranking, and topic-normalized citation impact of NHLBI cardiovascular R01 grants.
    Kaltman JR; Evans FJ; Danthi NS; Wu CO; DiMichele DM; Lauer MS
    Circ Res; 2014 Sep; 115(7):617-24. PubMed ID: 25214575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.
    Barnett AG; Glisson SR; Gallo S
    F1000Res; 2018; 7():1030. PubMed ID: 30345025
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis.
    Burns KEA; Straus SE; Liu K; Rizvi L; Guyatt G
    PLoS Med; 2019 Oct; 16(10):e1002935. PubMed ID: 31613898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Trends in program project grant funding at the National Cancer Institute.
    Broder S; Cushing M
    Cancer Res; 1993 Feb; 53(3):477-84. PubMed ID: 8425180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A 25-year analysis of the American College of Gastroenterology research grant program: factors associated with publication and advancement in academics.
    Crockett SD; Dellon ES; Bright SD; Shaheen NJ
    Am J Gastroenterol; 2009 May; 104(5):1097-105. PubMed ID: 19319125
    [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. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes.
    Gallo SA; Carpenter AS; Glisson SR
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(8):e71693. PubMed ID: 23951223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing health research grant applications: A retrospective comparative review of a one-stage versus a two-stage application assessment process.
    Morgan B; Yu LM; Solomon T; Ziebland S
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(3):e0230118. PubMed ID: 32163468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The grant application: making yours stand out across the review cycle.
    Hurley AC; Wells N
    Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord; 1999; 13 Suppl 1():S120-2. PubMed ID: 10369532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection.
    Gallo SA; Lemaster M; Glisson SR
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2016 Feb; 22(1):189-97. PubMed ID: 25649072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Analysis of the 2017 American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Research Portfolio.
    Yu JB; Beck TF; Anscher MS; Baschnagel AM; Brock KK; Carlson DJ; Dominello MM; Kimple RJ; Knisely JP; Mendonca MS; Mian OY; Singh AK; Moros EG; Keen JC
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2019 Feb; 103(2):297-304. PubMed ID: 30647006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. An output evaluation of a health research foundation's enhanced grant review process for new investigators.
    Hammond GW; Lê ML; Novotny T; Caligiuri SPB; Pierce GN; Wade J
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2017 Jun; 15(1):57. PubMed ID: 28629438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An institutional postdoctoral research training program: predictors of publication rate and federal funding success of its graduates.
    Ross RG; Greco-Sanders L; Laudenslager M; Reite M
    Acad Psychiatry; 2009; 33(3):234-40. PubMed ID: 19574523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.