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 *

522 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29507248)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.
    Abdoul H; Perrey C; Amiel P; Tubach F; Gottot S; Durand-Zaleski I; Alberti C
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(9):e46054. PubMed ID: 23029386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Structure and process of federal funding for AD research.
    Wells N; Hurley AC
    Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord; 1999; 13 Suppl 1():S117-9. PubMed ID: 10369531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Sample size and precision in NIH peer review.
    Kaplan D; Lacetera N; Kaplan C
    PLoS One; 2008 Jul; 3(7):e2761. PubMed ID: 18648494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives.
    Schroter S; Groves T; Højgaard L
    BMC Med; 2010 Oct; 8():62. PubMed ID: 20961441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The argument for diversifying the NIH grant portfolio.
    Peifer M
    Mol Biol Cell; 2017 Nov; 28(22):2935-2940. PubMed ID: 29084912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Characterization of the peer review network at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health.
    Boyack KW; Chen MC; Chacko G
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(8):e104244. PubMed ID: 25119140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Proposal Preparation Program: A Group Mentoring, Faculty Development Model to Facilitate the Submission and Funding of NIH Grant Applications.
    Weber-Main AM; Thomas-Pollei KA; Grabowski J; Steer CJ; Thuras PD; Kushner MG
    Acad Med; 2022 Jan; 97(1):53-61. PubMed ID: 34380935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications.
    Mayo NE; Brophy J; Goldberg MS; Klein MB; Miller S; Platt RW; Ritchie J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Aug; 59(8):842-8. PubMed ID: 16828678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training.
    Sattler DN; McKnight PE; Naney L; Mathis R
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0130450. PubMed ID: 26075884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals.
    Fogelholm M; Leppinen S; Auvinen A; Raitanen J; Nuutinen A; Väänänen K
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jan; 65(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 21831594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 27.