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 *

215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27249058)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Toward Independence: Resubmission Rate of Unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 Research Grant Applications Among Early Stage Investigators.
    Boyington JE; Antman MD; Patel KC; Lauer MS
    Acad Med; 2016 Apr; 91(4):556-62. PubMed ID: 26650674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort.
    Doyle JM; Baiocchi MT; Kiernan M
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0257559. PubMed ID: 34793439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Research funding. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?
    Li D; Agha L
    Science; 2015 Apr; 348(6233):434-8. PubMed ID: 25908820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. New physician-investigators receiving National Institutes of Health research project grants: a historical perspective on the "endangered species".
    Dickler HB; Fang D; Heinig SJ; Johnson E; Korn D
    JAMA; 2007 Jun; 297(22):2496-501. PubMed ID: 17565084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Outcomes of early NIH-funded investigators: Experience of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
    Haggerty PA; Fenton MJ
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(9):e0199648. PubMed ID: 30208016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system.
    Johnson VE
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2008 Aug; 105(32):11076-80. PubMed ID: 18663221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Unique Review Criteria and Patient and Stakeholder Reviewers: Analysis of PCORI's Approach to Research Funding.
    Forsythe LP; Frank LB; Tafari AT; Cohen SS; Lauer M; Clauser S; Goertz C; Schrandt S
    Value Health; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1152-1160. PubMed ID: 30314615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. NIH Peer Review: Scored Review Criteria and Overall Impact.
    Lindner MD; Vancea A; Chen MC; Chacko G
    Am J Eval; 2016 Jun; 37(2):238-249. PubMed ID: 27239158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Enhancing NIH grant peer review: a broader perspective.
    Bonetta L
    Cell; 2008 Oct; 135(2):201-4. PubMed ID: 18957192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.