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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28824703)

  • 41. [Electoral demography. The demographic dimension of a political process].
    Herrero JM
    Demos; 1991; (4):36-7. PubMed ID: 12158046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. A comparative framework to analyze convergence on Twitter electoral conversations.
    Cárdenas-Sánchez D; Sampayo AM; Rodríguez-Prieto M; Feged-Rivadeneira A
    Sci Rep; 2022 Nov; 12(1):19062. PubMed ID: 36352010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Deepfakes and Democracy (Theory): How Synthetic Audio-Visual Media for Disinformation and Hate Speech Threaten Core Democratic Functions.
    Pawelec M
    Digit Soc; 2022; 1(2):19. PubMed ID: 36097613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. How "Us" and "Them" Relates to Voting Behavior-Social Structure, Social Identities, and Electoral Choice.
    Bornschier S; Häusermann S; Zollinger D; Colombo C
    Comp Polit Stud; 2021 Oct; 54(12):2087-2122. PubMed ID: 34776526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Abortion and the presidential election of 1976: a multivariate analysis of voting behavior.
    Vinovskis MA
    Mich Law Rev; 1979 Aug; 77(7):1750-71. PubMed ID: 10245970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. How an election can be safely planned and conducted during a pandemic: Decision support based on a discrete event model.
    Weibrecht N; Rößler M; Bicher M; Emrich Š; Zauner G; Popper N
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(12):e0261016. PubMed ID: 34882707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. In Suspense: Donald Trump's Efforts to Undermine Public Trust in Democracy.
    Fried A; Harris DB
    Society; 2020; 57(5):527-533. PubMed ID: 33144745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Electoral rewards for political grandstanding.
    Park JY
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2023 Apr; 120(17):e2214697120. PubMed ID: 37071678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Who loses in direct democracy?
    Moore RT; Ravishankar N
    Soc Sci Res; 2012 May; 41(3):646-56. PubMed ID: 23017799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. The integrative force of political institutions? Direct democracy and voter turnout across ethnic and nativity groups.
    Manatschal A
    Comp Migr Stud; 2021; 9(1):6. PubMed ID: 33680857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Between order and disorder: a 'weak law' on recent electoral behavior among urban voters?
    Borghesi C; Chiche J; Nadal JP
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(7):e39916. PubMed ID: 22848365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Theoretical underpinnings of state institutionalisation of inclusion and struggles in collective health in Latin America.
    Mahmood Q; Muntaner C
    Glob Public Health; 2019; 14(6-7):863-874. PubMed ID: 29592787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Reevaluating the Influence of Leaders Under Proportional Representation: Quantitative Analysis of Text in an Electoral Experiment.
    Fredén A; Sikström S
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():604135. PubMed ID: 34054637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Forensic analysis of Turkish elections in 2017-2018.
    Klimek P; Jiménez R; Hidalgo M; Hinteregger A; Thurner S
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(10):e0204975. PubMed ID: 30289899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Ethnicity, inequality, and perceived electoral fairness.
    Flesken A; Hartl J
    Soc Sci Res; 2020 Jan; 85():102363. PubMed ID: 31789195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. The voting experience and beliefs about ballot secrecy.
    Dowling CM; Doherty D; Hill SJ; Gerber AS; Huber GA
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(1):e0209765. PubMed ID: 30615669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Health care in the 2004 presidential election.
    Blendon RJ; Altman DE; Benson JM; Brodie M
    N Engl J Med; 2004 Sep; 351(13):1314-22. PubMed ID: 15385658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Social media echo chambers and satisfaction with democracy among Democrats and Republicans in the aftermath of the 2016 US elections.
    Justwan F; Baumgaertner B; Carlisle JE; Clark AK; Clark M
    J Elect Public Opin Parties; 2018; 28(4):424-442. PubMed ID: 31231432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Do interest groups bias MPs' perception of party voters' preferences?
    Eichenberger S; Varone F; Helfer L
    Party Politics; 2022 May; 28(3):567-579. PubMed ID: 35493064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Are We Rational or Not? The Exploration of Voter Choices during the 2016 Presidential and Legislative Elections in Taiwan.
    Lee IC; Chen EE; Yen NS; Tsai CH; Cheng HP
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():1762. PubMed ID: 29075215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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