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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25838360)

  • 61. Look before you quote.
    Dickerson K; Hewitt P
    Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1986 Oct; 293(6553):1000-2. PubMed ID: 12587580
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. The promise and perils of peer review.
    Rohrich RJ
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2006 Sep; 118(3):795-7. PubMed ID: 16932192
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. On zombie papers.
    Bucci EM
    Cell Death Dis; 2019 Feb; 10(3):189. PubMed ID: 30804342
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. A report on scientific misconduct.
    Murray RW
    Anal Chem; 2002 Nov; 74(21):549A. PubMed ID: 12433067
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. An error in research: admission, anxiety, and action.
    Lewis RJ; Newgard CD
    Acad Emerg Med; 2000 Nov; 7(11):1177-9. PubMed ID: 11073462
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Correcting the scientific literature: retraction and republication.
    Lancet; 2015 Jan; 385(9966):394. PubMed ID: 25706962
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. [Manipulating scientists].
    Wenzel V; Zwissler B; Larsen R
    Anaesthesist; 2009 Apr; 58(4):339-40. PubMed ID: 19352603
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. How reliable is this research? Tool flags papers discussed on PubPeer.
    Singh Chawla D
    Nature; 2024 May; 629(8011):271-272. PubMed ID: 38684831
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Difficulty in detecting discrepancies in a clinical trial report: 260-reader evaluation.
    Cole GD; Shun-Shin MJ; Nowbar AN; Buell KG; Al-Mayahi F; Zargaran D; Mahmood S; Singh B; Mielewczik M; Francis DP
    Int J Epidemiol; 2015 Jun; 44(3):862-9. PubMed ID: 26174517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. The continuing problem of retracted papers.
    Dack S
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 1986 Jan; 7(1):244-5. PubMed ID: 3510236
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Papers by: Dr Aws Shakir Mustafa Salim.
    Forbes CD
    Scott Med J; 1994 Oct; 39(5):139. PubMed ID: 8778968
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Peer review--loopholes, hackers and scams.
    Jackson A
    Aust Vet J; 2015; 93(1-2):N19. PubMed ID: 25789397
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Former editor who fabricated data is suspended for four months.
    Dyer C
    BMJ; 2017 Sep; 358():j4537. PubMed ID: 28963122
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Ernst fails to address key charges.
    Morley J; Rosner AL; Redwood D
    J Altern Complement Med; 2001 Apr; 7(2):127-8. PubMed ID: 11327517
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. TL;DR: how well do machines summarize our work?
    Bagrow JP
    Nature; 2021 Feb; 590(7844):36. PubMed ID: 33531704
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Editors' note regarding the notice of retraction.
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Nov; 195(5):1195. PubMed ID: 17074541
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. The refereeing procedures for papers submitted to Clinical Radiology.
    Armstrong P
    Clin Radiol; 1992 Jul; 46(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 1643774
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. 'Papermill alarm' software flags potentially fake papers.
    Else H
    Nature; 2022 Sep; ():. PubMed ID: 36151206
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Fake peer review - too good to be true.
    Cheung BMY
    Postgrad Med J; 2017 Aug; 93(1102):498. PubMed ID: 28592588
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Software searches out reproducibility issues in scientific papers.
    Singh Chawla D
    Nature; 2020 Jan; ():. PubMed ID: 33473185
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.