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 *

189 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28744581)

  • 1. Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation-Part 3: Automated Report Analysis and Data Reconciliation.
    Reiner BI
    J Digit Imaging; 2018 Feb; 31(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 28744581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 1: Creation of a Standardized Methodology and Referenceable Database.
    Reiner BI
    J Digit Imaging; 2017 Oct; 30(5):530-533. PubMed ID: 28744582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 2: Data-Driven Peer Review Selection and Assignment.
    Reiner BI
    J Digit Imaging; 2017 Dec; 30(6):657-660. PubMed ID: 28752322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Medical imaging data reconciliation, part 3: reconciliation of historical and current radiology report data.
    Reiner BI
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2011 Nov; 8(11):768-71. PubMed ID: 22051459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Strategies for medical data extraction and presentation part 2: creating a customizable context and user-specific patient reference database.
    Reiner B
    J Digit Imaging; 2015 Jun; 28(3):249-55. PubMed ID: 25833767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015).
    Grimaldo F; Marušić A; Squazzoni F
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(2):e0193148. PubMed ID: 29466467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Automated Classification of Selected Data Elements from Free-text Diagnostic Reports for Clinical Research.
    Löpprich M; Krauss F; Ganzinger M; Senghas K; Riezler S; Knaup P
    Methods Inf Med; 2016 Aug; 55(4):373-80. PubMed ID: 27406024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer.
    Faggion CM
    Br Dent J; 2016 Feb; 220(4):167-8. PubMed ID: 26917302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Automated information extraction and structure-activity relationship analysis of cytochrome P450 substrates.
    Yamashita F; Feng C; Yoshida S; Itoh T; Hashida M
    J Chem Inf Model; 2011 Feb; 51(2):378-85. PubMed ID: 21247177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Bruce R; Chauvin A; Trinquart L; Ravaud P; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2016 Jun; 14(1):85. PubMed ID: 27287500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Creation and Validation of an Automated Algorithm to Determine Postoperative Ventilator Requirements After Cardiac Surgery.
    Gabel E; Hofer IS; Satou N; Grogan T; Shemin R; Mahajan A; Cannesson M
    Anesth Analg; 2017 May; 124(5):1423-1430. PubMed ID: 28431419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Controlled Substance Reconciliation Accuracy Improvement Using Near Real-Time Drug Transaction Capture from Automated Dispensing Cabinets.
    Epstein RH; Dexter F; Gratch DM; Perino M; Magrann J
    Anesth Analg; 2016 Jun; 122(6):1841-55. PubMed ID: 27111643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Building an automated SOAP classifier for emergency department reports.
    Mowery D; Wiebe J; Visweswaran S; Harkema H; Chapman WW
    J Biomed Inform; 2012 Feb; 45(1):71-81. PubMed ID: 21925286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Optimizing radiology peer review: a mathematical model for selecting future cases based on prior errors.
    Sheu YR; Feder E; Balsim I; Levin VF; Bleicher AG; Branstetter BF
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2010 Jun; 7(6):431-8. PubMed ID: 20522396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review.
    Li L; Wang Y; Liu G; Wang M; Wu X
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0130493. PubMed ID: 26090849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Application of the intelligent techniques in transplantation databases: a review of articles published in 2009 and 2010.
    Sousa FS; Hummel AD; Maciel RF; Cohrs FM; Falcão AE; Teixeira F; Baptista R; Mancini F; da Costa TM; Alves D; Pisa IT
    Transplant Proc; 2011 May; 43(4):1340-2. PubMed ID: 21620124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Improvement of the quality of medical databases: data-mining-based prediction of diagnostic codes from previous patient codes.
    Djennaoui M; Ficheur G; Beuscart R; Chazard E
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2015; 210():419-23. PubMed ID: 25991178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer Review.
    Wierzbinski-Cross H
    J Nurses Prof Dev; 2017; 33(2):102-104. PubMed ID: 28252494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer review: inter-reviewer agreement during evaluation of research grant applications.
    Wiener SL; Urivetzky M; Bregman D; Cohen J; Eich R; Gootman N; Gulotta S; Taylor B; Tuttle R; Webb W; Wright J
    Clin Res; 1977 Dec; 25(5):306-11. PubMed ID: 10304719
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Collaborative peer review process as an informal interprofessional learning tool: Findings from an exploratory study.
    Kwon JY; Bulk LY; Giannone Z; Liva S; Chakraborty B; Brown H
    J Interprof Care; 2018 Jan; 32(1):101-103. PubMed ID: 28949810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.