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 *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27821388)

  • 1. WHO refers $29m Oxford research project to GMC for misconduct.
    Hawkes N
    BMJ; 2016 Nov; 355():i5971. PubMed ID: 27821388
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Scientific misconduct in medical research.
    Verma BL; Shukla GD
    J Indian Med Assoc; 1992 Aug; 90(8):222-5. PubMed ID: 1460306
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Meeting calls for a national body to respond to research misconduct.
    Smith R
    BMJ; 2001 Oct; 323(7318):889. PubMed ID: 11668130
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Doctors propose panel on research misconduct.
    Klarreich E
    Nature; 2001 Oct; 413(6855):442. PubMed ID: 11586312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. UK declaration made on research misconduct.
    Horton R
    Lancet; 1999 Nov; 354(9190):1623. PubMed ID: 11658054
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accusations fly after big Gates grant.
    Kupferschmidt K
    Science; 2016 Sep; 353(6304):1081-2. PubMed ID: 27609868
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Research integrity. U.S. universities urged to do a better job.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2002 Jul; 297(5580):321. PubMed ID: 12130761
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Research misconduct.
    Jones R
    Fam Pract; 2002 Apr; 19(2):123-4. PubMed ID: 11906974
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The UK Panel of Research Integrity: a missed opportunity.
    Lancet; 2008 Oct; 372(9648):1438. PubMed ID: 18970963
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. UK Panel for Research Integrity: more than a smokescreen.
    Kennedy I
    Lancet; 2008 Nov; 372(9653):1877. PubMed ID: 19041791
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Procedure for investigation of research misconduct--active treatment or sham intervention?
    Wilmshurst P
    J R Soc Med; 2008 Nov; 101(11):524-5. PubMed ID: 19029346
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Research bodies try to strengthen the integrity of UK research.
    Torjesen I
    BMJ; 2012 Apr; 344():e2677. PubMed ID: 22496343
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Collapse of GMC hearing into research misconduct.
    Whitelaw A
    Lancet; 2008 Oct; 372(9646):1283-4. PubMed ID: 18929890
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Plans for tackling research fraud may not go far enough.
    White C
    BMJ; 2000 Dec; 321(7275):1487. PubMed ID: 11118165
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. What's new in research ethics.
    Bull Med Ethics; 1996 Oct; No. 122():13-8. PubMed ID: 11654863
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Whatever made them do it?
    Estling R
    New Sci; 1995 Jan; 145(1961):48-9. PubMed ID: 11656388
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accused researcher fights back.
    Sci News; 1981 Jun; 119(24):373. PubMed ID: 11653482
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Will the UK cope?
    Horton R
    Lancet; 1997 Jul; 350(9073):234. PubMed ID: 9242798
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The secret world of animal experiments.
    Hampson J
    New Sci; 1992 Apr; 134(1816):24-7. PubMed ID: 11656118
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Stoke CNEP saga - did it need to take so long?
    Wells F
    J R Soc Med; 2010 Sep; 103(9):352-6. PubMed ID: 20406829
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.