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: 28158316)

  • 1. Phishing suspiciousness in older and younger adults: The role of executive functioning.
    Gavett BE; Zhao R; John SE; Bussell CA; Roberts JR; Yue C
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(2):e0171620. PubMed ID: 28158316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. It's the deceiver and the receiver: Individual differences in phishing susceptibility and false positives with item profiling.
    Kleitman S; Law MKH; Kay J
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(10):e0205089. PubMed ID: 30365492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Susceptibility to Spear-Phishing Emails: Effects of Internet User Demographics and Email Content.
    Lin T; Capecci DE; Ellis DM; Rocha HA; Dommaraju S; Oliveira DS; Ebner NC
    ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact; 2019 Sep; 26(5):. PubMed ID: 32508486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Is This Phishing? Older Age Is Associated With Greater Difficulty Discriminating Between Safe and Malicious Emails.
    Grilli MD; McVeigh KS; Hakim ZM; Wank AA; Getz SJ; Levin BE; Ebner NC; Wilson RC
    J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci; 2021 Oct; 76(9):1711-1715. PubMed ID: 33378418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Embedding Training Within Warnings Improves Skills of Identifying Phishing Webpages.
    Xiong A; Proctor RW; Yang W; Li N
    Hum Factors; 2019 Jun; 61(4):577-595. PubMed ID: 30526089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Phishing vulnerability compounded by older age, apolipoprotein E e4 genotype, and lower cognition.
    Pehlivanoglu D; Shoenfelt A; Hakim Z; Heemskerk A; Zhen J; Mosqueda M; Wilson RC; Huentelman M; Grilli MD; Turner G; Spreng RN; Ebner NC
    PNAS Nexus; 2024 Aug; 3(8):pgae296. PubMed ID: 39118834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Who Gets Caught in the Web of Lies?: Understanding Susceptibility to Phishing Emails, Fake News Headlines, and Scam Text Messages.
    Sarno DM; Black J
    Hum Factors; 2024 Jun; 66(6):1742-1753. PubMed ID: 37127397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Is Domain Highlighting Actually Helpful in Identifying Phishing Web Pages?
    Xiong A; Proctor RW; Yang W; Li N
    Hum Factors; 2017 Jun; 59(4):640-660. PubMed ID: 28060529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessment of Employee Susceptibility to Phishing Attacks at US Health Care Institutions.
    Gordon WJ; Wright A; Aiyagari R; Corbo L; Glynn RJ; Kadakia J; Kufahl J; Mazzone C; Noga J; Parkulo M; Sanford B; Scheib P; Landman AB
    JAMA Netw Open; 2019 Mar; 2(3):e190393. PubMed ID: 30848810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Signal Detection Theory (SDT) Is Effective for Modeling User Behavior Toward Phishing and Spear-Phishing Attacks.
    Martin J; Dubé C; Coovert MD
    Hum Factors; 2018 Dec; 60(8):1179-1191. PubMed ID: 30063406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Training users to counteract phishing.
    Mayhorn CB; Nyeste PG
    Work; 2012; 41 Suppl 1():3549-52. PubMed ID: 22317259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Interoceptive Accuracy Enhances Deception Detection in Older Adults.
    Heemskerk A; Lin T; Pehlivanoglu D; Hakim Z; Valdes-Hernandez PA; Ten Brinke L; Grilli MD; Wilson RC; Turner GR; Spreng RN; Ebner NC
    J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci; 2024 Nov; 79(11):. PubMed ID: 39297532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Predicting User Susceptibility to Phishing Based on Multidimensional Features.
    Yang R; Zheng K; Wu B; Li D; Wang Z; Wang X
    Comput Intell Neurosci; 2022; 2022():7058972. PubMed ID: 35082844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Which Phish Is on the Hook? Phishing Vulnerability for Older Versus Younger Adults.
    Sarno DM; Lewis JE; Bohil CJ; Neider MB
    Hum Factors; 2020 Aug; 62(5):704-717. PubMed ID: 31237787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The Phishing Email Suspicion Test (PEST) a lab-based task for evaluating the cognitive mechanisms of phishing detection.
    Hakim ZM; Ebner NC; Oliveira DS; Getz SJ; Levin BE; Lin T; Lloyd K; Lai VT; Grilli MD; Wilson RC
    Behav Res Methods; 2021 Jun; 53(3):1342-1352. PubMed ID: 33078362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Detecting phishing websites using machine learning technique.
    Dutta AK
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(10):e0258361. PubMed ID: 34634081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Role of Cue Utilization and Cognitive Load in the Recognition of Phishing Emails.
    Nasser G; Morrison BW; Bayl-Smith P; Taib R; Gayed M; Wiggins MW
    Front Big Data; 2020; 3():546860. PubMed ID: 33693413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Setting Priorities in Behavioral Interventions: An Application to Reducing Phishing Risk.
    Canfield CI; Fischhoff B
    Risk Anal; 2018 Apr; 38(4):826-838. PubMed ID: 29023908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. So Many Phish, So Little Time: Exploring Email Task Factors and Phishing Susceptibility.
    Sarno DM; Neider MB
    Hum Factors; 2022 Dec; 64(8):1379-1403. PubMed ID: 33835881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Phishing in healthcare organisations: threats, mitigation and approaches.
    Priestman W; Anstis T; Sebire IG; Sridharan S; Sebire NJ
    BMJ Health Care Inform; 2019 Sep; 26(1):. PubMed ID: 31488498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.