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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30953009)

  • 1. Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals.
    Forscher PS; Cox WTL; Brauer M; Devine PG
    Nat Hum Behav; 2019 Mar; 3(3):257-264. PubMed ID: 30953009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?
    Kaatz A; Lee YG; Potvien A; Magua W; Filut A; Bhattacharya A; Leatherberry R; Zhu X; Carnes M
    Acad Med; 2016 Aug; 91(8):1080-8. PubMed ID: 27276003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Gender bias goes away when grant reviewers focus on the science.
    Guglielmi G
    Nature; 2018 Feb; 554(7690):14-15. PubMed ID: 29388971
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. New physician-investigators receiving National Institutes of Health research project grants: a historical perspective on the "endangered species".
    Dickler HB; Fang D; Heinig SJ; Johnson E; Korn D
    JAMA; 2007 Jun; 297(22):2496-501. PubMed ID: 17565084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Racial inequity in grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health.
    Taffe MA; Gilpin NW
    Elife; 2021 Jan; 10():. PubMed ID: 33459595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Inequalities in the distribution of National Institutes of Health research project grant funding.
    Lauer MS; Roychowdhury D
    Elife; 2021 Sep; 10():. PubMed ID: 34477108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Research funding. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?
    Li D; Agha L
    Science; 2015 Apr; 348(6233):434-8. PubMed ID: 25908820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The impact of gender on scientific writing: An observational study of grant proposals.
    Franco MC; Rice DB; Schuch HS; Dellagostin OA; Cenci MS; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Aug; 136():37-43. PubMed ID: 33545271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Gender, Race, and Grant Reviews: Translating and Responding to Research Feedback.
    Biernat M; Carnes M; Filut A; Kaatz A
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2020 Jan; 46(1):140-154. PubMed ID: 31088206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Perspective: is NIH funding the "best science by the best scientists"? A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies.
    Costello LC
    Acad Med; 2010 May; 85(5):775-9. PubMed ID: 20520024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Research on Skin Cancer-Related Behaviors and Outcomes in the NIH Grant Portfolio, 2000-2014: Skin Cancer Intervention Across the Cancer Control Continuum (SCI-3C).
    Perna FM; Dwyer LA; Tesauro G; Taber JM; Norton WE; Hartman AM; Geller AC
    JAMA Dermatol; 2017 May; 153(5):398-405. PubMed ID: 28329179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. No bias found in NIH reviews.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2018 Jun; 360(6393):1055. PubMed ID: 29880666
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Difference in R01 Grant Funding Among Osteopathic and Allopathic Emergency Physicians over the Last Decade.
    Antony M; Savino J; Ashurst J
    West J Emerg Med; 2017 Jun; 18(4):621-623. PubMed ID: 28611882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Declines in funding of NIH R01 research grants.
    Mandel HG; Vesell ES
    Science; 2006 Sep; 313(5792):1387-8. PubMed ID: 16959989
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system.
    Johnson VE
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2008 Aug; 105(32):11076-80. PubMed ID: 18663221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.