BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

429 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31888607)

  • 1. Gender-based differences in letters of recommendation written for ophthalmology residency applicants.
    Lin F; Oh SK; Gordon LK; Pineles SL; Rosenberg JB; Tsui I
    BMC Med Educ; 2019 Dec; 19(1):476. PubMed ID: 31888607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Are There Gender-based Differences in Language in Letters of Recommendation to an Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Program?
    Kobayashi AN; Sterling RS; Tackett SA; Chee BW; Laporte DM; Humbyrd CJ
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2020 Jul; 478(7):1400-1408. PubMed ID: 31794493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Do gender and racial differences exist in letters of recommendation for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants?
    Brown O; Mou T; Lim SI; Jones S; Sade S; Kwasny MJ; Mueller MG; Kenton K
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Nov; 225(5):554.e1-554.e11. PubMed ID: 34506753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Linguistic Differences by Gender in Letters of Recommendation for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellowship Applicants.
    Rosenthal E; Tappy E; Pan E; Verma D; Wang A; Brown LS; Santiago-Muñoz P; Florian-Rodriguez M
    Am J Perinatol; 2024 May; 41(S 01):e1955-e1961. PubMed ID: 37336234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Gender and Letters of Recommendation: A Linguistic Comparison of the Impact of Gender on General Surgery Residency Applicants
    French JC; Zolin SJ; Lampert E; Aiello A; Bencsath KP; Ritter KA; Strong AT; Lipman JM; Valente MA; Prabhu AS
    J Surg Educ; 2019; 76(4):899-905. PubMed ID: 30598383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Presence of Gender Bias in Letters of Recommendations Written for Urology Residency Applicants.
    Filippou P; Mahajan S; Deal A; Wallen EM; Tan HJ; Pruthi RS; Smith AB
    Urology; 2019 Dec; 134():56-61. PubMed ID: 31491451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Don't Judge a Letter by its Title: Linguistic Analysis of Letters of Recommendation by Author's Academic Rank.
    Han AY; French JC; Tu C; Obiri-Yeboah D; Lipman JM; Prabhu AS
    J Surg Educ; 2021; 78(6):e19-e27. PubMed ID: 34011478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The Role of Gender in Neurosurgical Residency Applicants' Letters of Recommendation.
    Field NC; Pilitsis JG; Paul AR
    Neurosurgery; 2021 Aug; 89(3):504-508. PubMed ID: 34131761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. More Than One-third of Orthopaedic Applicants Are in the Top 10%: The Standardized Letter of Recommendation and Evaluation of Orthopaedic Resident Applicants.
    Pacana MJ; Thier ZT; Jackson JB; Koon DE; Grabowski G
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2021 Aug; 479(8):1703-1708. PubMed ID: 33764931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Linguistic Analysis of Letters of Recommendation for Vascular Surgery and Obstetrics and Gynecology Applicants Detects Differences in Attributable Strengths Based on Gender.
    Go C; Lang S; Byrne M; Brucha DL; Parviainen K; Sachdev U
    J Surg Educ; 2021; 78(5):1535-1543. PubMed ID: 33745859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Influence of Gender on Surgical Residency Applicants' Recommendation Letters.
    Turrentine FE; Dreisbach CN; St Ivany AR; Hanks JB; Schroen AT
    J Am Coll Surg; 2019 Apr; 228(4):356-365.e3. PubMed ID: 30630084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Use of standardized letters of recommendation for otolaryngology head and neck surgery residency and the impact of gender.
    Friedman R; Fang CH; Hasbun J; Han H; Mady LJ; Eloy JA; Kalyoussef E
    Laryngoscope; 2017 Dec; 127(12):2738-2745. PubMed ID: 28786169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Gender and Racial Bias in Radiology Residency Letters of Recommendation.
    Grimm LJ; Redmond RA; Campbell JC; Rosette AS
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2020 Jan; 17(1 Pt A):64-71. PubMed ID: 31494103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessment of gender differences in letters of recommendation for pharmacy residency applicants.
    Rice ML; Leung JG; Mara KC; Leung SB
    Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2021 Jun; 78(12):1118-1125. PubMed ID: 33821930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Gender and Racial Bias in Letters of Recommendation for Orthopedic Surgery Residency Positions.
    Girgis MY; Qazi S; Patel A; Yu D; Lu X; Sewards J
    J Surg Educ; 2023 Jan; 80(1):127-134. PubMed ID: 36151044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Gender Differences in Letters of Recommendation for Gynecology Surgical Fellowship Applicants: Analysis of One Program's Recruitment Cycle.
    Lim SI; Mueller M; Mou T; Jones S; Tanner E; Chaudhari A; Kenton K; Brown O
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2023 May; 30(5):406-413. PubMed ID: 36736768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Gender Bias in Surgical Oncology Fellowship Recommendation Letters: Gaining Progress.
    Grova MM; Jenkins FG; Filippou P; Strassle PD; Jin Kim H; Ollila DW; Meyers MO
    J Surg Educ; 2021; 78(3):866-874. PubMed ID: 33317986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Use of artificial intelligence for gender bias analysis in letters of recommendation for general surgery residency candidates.
    Sarraf D; Vasiliu V; Imberman B; Lindeman B
    Am J Surg; 2021 Dec; 222(6):1051-1059. PubMed ID: 34674847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Standardized letters of recommendation and successful match into otolaryngology.
    Kimple AJ; McClurg SW; Del Signore AG; Tomoum MO; Lin FC; Senior BA
    Laryngoscope; 2016 May; 126(5):1071-6. PubMed ID: 26839977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Linguistic Differences by Gender in Letters of Recommendation for Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery Fellowship Applicants.
    Tappy E; Pan E; Verma D; Wang A; Brown LS; Chang S; Florian-Rodriguez M
    J Surg Educ; 2022; 79(4):928-934. PubMed ID: 35249843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.