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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31851688)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Quantifying Phishing Susceptibility for Detection and Behavior Decisions.
    Canfield CI; Fischhoff B; Davis A
    Hum Factors; 2016 Dec; 58(8):1158-1172. PubMed ID: 27562565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Embedding Training Within Warnings Improves Skills of Identifying Phishing Webpages.
    Xiong A; Proctor RW; Yang W; Li N
    Hum Factors; 2019 Jun; 61(4):577-595. PubMed ID: 30526089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Phoney phishing and pharming.
    McCombs B
    Can J Rural Med; 2005; 10(3):186-7. PubMed ID: 16079038
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The effect of automation trust tendency, system reliability and feedback on users' phishing detection.
    Zhou Y; Cui X; Qu W; Ge Y
    Appl Ergon; 2022 Jul; 102():103754. PubMed ID: 35339760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Which Phish Is on the Hook? Phishing Vulnerability for Older Versus Younger Adults.
    Sarno DM; Lewis JE; Bohil CJ; Neider MB
    Hum Factors; 2020 Aug; 62(5):704-717. PubMed ID: 31237787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Email fraud: The search for psychological predictors of susceptibility.
    Jones HS; Towse JN; Race N; Harrison T
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(1):e0209684. PubMed ID: 30650114
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Academic Information Security Researchers: Hackers or Specialists?
    Dadkhah M; Lagzian M; Borchardt G
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2018 Apr; 24(2):785-790. PubMed ID: 28397172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.