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 *

233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31488498)

  • 1. Phishing in healthcare organisations: threats, mitigation and approaches.
    Priestman W; Anstis T; Sebire IG; Sridharan S; Sebire NJ
    BMJ Health Care Inform; 2019 Sep; 26(1):. PubMed ID: 31488498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Assessment of Employee Susceptibility to Phishing Attacks at US Health Care Institutions.
    Gordon WJ; Wright A; Aiyagari R; Corbo L; Glynn RJ; Kadakia J; Kufahl J; Mazzone C; Noga J; Parkulo M; Sanford B; Scheib P; Landman AB
    JAMA Netw Open; 2019 Mar; 2(3):e190393. PubMed ID: 30848810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Influence of Human Factors on Cyber Security within Healthcare Organisations: A Systematic Review.
    Nifakos S; Chandramouli K; Nikolaou CK; Papachristou P; Koch S; Panaousis E; Bonacina S
    Sensors (Basel); 2021 Jul; 21(15):. PubMed ID: 34372354
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of a mandatory phishing training program for high-risk employees at a US healthcare system.
    Gordon WJ; Wright A; Glynn RJ; Kadakia J; Mazzone C; Leinbach E; Landman A
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2019 Jun; 26(6):547-552. PubMed ID: 30861069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Informing, simulating experience, or both: A field experiment on phishing risks.
    Baillon A; de Bruin J; Emirmahmutoglu A; van de Veer E; van Dijk B
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(12):e0224216. PubMed ID: 31851688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Why Employees (Still) Click on Phishing Links: Investigation in Hospitals.
    Jalali MS; Bruckes M; Westmattelmann D; Schewe G
    J Med Internet Res; 2020 Jan; 22(1):e16775. PubMed ID: 32012071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Is This Phishing? Older Age Is Associated With Greater Difficulty Discriminating Between Safe and Malicious Emails.
    Grilli MD; McVeigh KS; Hakim ZM; Wank AA; Getz SJ; Levin BE; Ebner NC; Wilson RC
    J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci; 2021 Oct; 76(9):1711-1715. PubMed ID: 33378418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Phishing simulation exercise in a large hospital: A case study.
    Rizzoni F; Magalini S; Casaroli A; Mari P; Dixon M; Coventry L
    Digit Health; 2022; 8():20552076221081716. PubMed ID: 35321019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Personalized persuasion: Quantifying susceptibility to information exploitation in spear-phishing attacks.
    Xu T; Singh K; Rajivan P
    Appl Ergon; 2023 Apr; 108():103908. PubMed ID: 36403509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Ethics and Phishing Experiments.
    Resnik DB; Finn PR
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2018 Aug; 24(4):1241-1252. PubMed ID: 28812222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. So Many Phish, So Little Time: Exploring Email Task Factors and Phishing Susceptibility.
    Sarno DM; Neider MB
    Hum Factors; 2022 Dec; 64(8):1379-1403. PubMed ID: 33835881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Who Gets Caught in the Web of Lies?: Understanding Susceptibility to Phishing Emails, Fake News Headlines, and Scam Text Messages.
    Sarno DM; Black J
    Hum Factors; 2024 Jun; 66(6):1742-1753. PubMed ID: 37127397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Signal Detection Theory (SDT) Is Effective for Modeling User Behavior Toward Phishing and Spear-Phishing Attacks.
    Martin J; Dubé C; Coovert MD
    Hum Factors; 2018 Dec; 60(8):1179-1191. PubMed ID: 30063406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Phishing Email Suspicion Test (PEST) a lab-based task for evaluating the cognitive mechanisms of phishing detection.
    Hakim ZM; Ebner NC; Oliveira DS; Getz SJ; Levin BE; Lin T; Lloyd K; Lai VT; Grilli MD; Wilson RC
    Behav Res Methods; 2021 Jun; 53(3):1342-1352. PubMed ID: 33078362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The role of cue utilization in the detection of phishing emails.
    Sturman D; Valenzuela C; Plate O; Tanvir T; Auton JC; Bayl-Smith P; Wiggins MW
    Appl Ergon; 2023 Jan; 106():103887. PubMed ID: 36037654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Understanding Phishing Email Processing and Perceived Trustworthiness Through Eye Tracking.
    McAlaney J; Hills PJ
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():1756. PubMed ID: 32849040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. It's the deceiver and the receiver: Individual differences in phishing susceptibility and false positives with item profiling.
    Kleitman S; Law MKH; Kay J
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(10):e0205089. PubMed ID: 30365492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Result and Effectiveness of Malicious E-mail Response Training in a Hospital.
    Lee HS; Jeong DN; Lee SI; Lee SH; Kim KYH; Lee HY; Cho HJ; Choi SW; Ko T
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2019 Aug; 264():1957. PubMed ID: 31438426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Identifying and Mitigating Phishing Attack Threats in IoT Use Cases Using a Threat Modelling Approach.
    Abbas SG; Vaccari I; Hussain F; Zahid S; Fayyaz UU; Shah GA; Bakhshi T; Cambiaso E
    Sensors (Basel); 2021 Jul; 21(14):. PubMed ID: 34300556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The roles of phishing knowledge, cue utilization, and decision styles in phishing email detection.
    Sturman D; Bell EA; Auton JC; Breakey GR; Wiggins MW
    Appl Ergon; 2024 Sep; 119():104309. PubMed ID: 38729025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.