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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30917154)

  • 21. Political polarization of news media and influencers on Twitter in the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections.
    Flamino J; Galeazzi A; Feldman S; Macy MW; Cross B; Zhou Z; Serafino M; Bovet A; Makse HA; Szymanski BK
    Nat Hum Behav; 2023 Jun; 7(6):904-916. PubMed ID: 36914806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Gains in health insurance coverage explain variation in Democratic vote share in the 2008-2016 presidential elections.
    Hollingsworth A; Soni A; Carroll AE; Cawley J; Simon K
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(4):e0214206. PubMed ID: 30946752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Public interest in Cannabis during election season: a Google Trends analysis.
    Torgerson T; Roberts W; Lester D; Khojasteh J; Vassar M
    J Cannabis Res; 2020 Sep; 2(1):31. PubMed ID: 33526135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Smearing the opposition: implicit and explicit stigmatization of the 2008 U.S. Presidential candidates and the current U.S. President.
    Kosloff S; Greenberg J; Schmader T; Dechesne M; Weise D
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2010 Aug; 139(3):383-98. PubMed ID: 20677891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Individual Differences in Belief in Fake News about Election Fraud after the 2020 U.S. Election.
    Calvillo DP; Rutchick AM; Garcia RJB
    Behav Sci (Basel); 2021 Dec; 11(12):. PubMed ID: 34940110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Analyzing voter behavior on social media during the 2020 US presidential election campaign.
    Belcastro L; Branda F; Cantini R; Marozzo F; Talia D; Trunfio P
    Soc Netw Anal Min; 2022; 12(1):83. PubMed ID: 35873661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Factors associated with post-election psychological distress: The case of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
    Pitcho-Prelorentzos S; Kaniasty K; Hamama-Raz Y; Goodwin R; Ring L; Ben-Ezra M; Mahat-Shamir M
    Psychiatry Res; 2018 Aug; 266():1-4. PubMed ID: 29787806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans' support for partisan violence.
    Mernyk JS; Pink SL; Druckman JN; Willer R
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2022 Apr; 119(16):e2116851119. PubMed ID: 35412915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The disastrous business of presidential campaigns: The effect of disaster declarations on presidential elections in FEMA Region 3.
    Balbuena K; Thornton TE; Baxter P; English W; Chen W
    J Emerg Manag; 2022; 20(6):535-559. PubMed ID: 36523196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Epistemic beliefs' role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation.
    Garrett RK; Weeks BE
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(9):e0184733. PubMed ID: 28922387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. It's complicated: Facebook users' political participation in the 2008 election.
    Vitak J; Zube P; Smock A; Carr CT; Ellison N; Lampe C
    Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw; 2011 Mar; 14(3):107-14. PubMed ID: 20649449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Studying topic engagement and synergy among candidates for 2020 US Elections.
    Baxi MK; Sharma R; Mago V
    Soc Netw Anal Min; 2022; 12(1):136. PubMed ID: 36118938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization.
    Bail CA; Argyle LP; Brown TW; Bumpus JP; Chen H; Hunzaker MBF; Lee J; Mann M; Merhout F; Volfovsky A
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 Sep; 115(37):9216-9221. PubMed ID: 30154168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Underlying socio-political processes behind the 2016 US election.
    Bryden J; Silverman E
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(4):e0214854. PubMed ID: 30964900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Winning! Election returns and engagement in social media.
    Calvo E; Ventura T; Aruguete N; Waisbord S
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(3):e0281475. PubMed ID: 36857337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. More tweets, more votes: social media as a quantitative indicator of political behavior.
    Digrazia J; McKelvey K; Bollen J; Rojas F
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(11):e79449. PubMed ID: 24312181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Using Facebook data to predict the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
    Chang KC; Chiang CF; Lin MJ
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(12):e0253560. PubMed ID: 34851951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Social Media News Production, Emotional Facebook Reactions, and the Politicization of Drug Addiction.
    Kilgo DK; Midberry J
    Health Commun; 2022 Mar; 37(3):375-383. PubMed ID: 33213217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Life expectancy and voting patterns in the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
    Curtis LH; Hoffman MN; Califf RM; Hammill BG
    SSM Popul Health; 2021 Sep; 15():100840. PubMed ID: 34169139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing.
    Nyhan B; Settle J; Thorson E; Wojcieszak M; Barberá P; Chen AY; Allcott H; Brown T; Crespo-Tenorio A; Dimmery D; Freelon D; Gentzkow M; González-Bailón S; Guess AM; Kennedy E; Kim YM; Lazer D; Malhotra N; Moehler D; Pan J; Thomas DR; Tromble R; Rivera CV; Wilkins A; Xiong B; de Jonge CK; Franco A; Mason W; Stroud NJ; Tucker JA
    Nature; 2023 Aug; 620(7972):137-144. PubMed ID: 37500978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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