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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31920212)

  • 1. A Matter of Reevaluation: Incentivizing Users to Contribute Reviews in Online Platforms.
    Zhang M; Wei X; Zeng DD
    Decis Support Syst; 2020 Jan; 128():. PubMed ID: 31920212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Chronic Pain Practices: An Evaluation of Positive and Negative Online Patient Reviews.
    Orhurhu MS; Salisu B; Sottosanti E; Abimbola N; Urits I; Jones M; Viswanath O; Kaye AD; Simopoulos T; Orhurhu V
    Pain Physician; 2019 Sep; 22(5):E477-E486. PubMed ID: 31561660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Explaining reviewing effort: Existing reviews as potential driver.
    Rohde C; Kupfer A; Zimmermann S
    Electron Mark; 2022; 32(3):1169-1185. PubMed ID: 36313980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Incentives can reduce bias in online employer reviews.
    Marinescu I; Chamberlain A; Smart M; Klein N
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2021 Jun; 27(2):393-407. PubMed ID: 33764122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians.
    Scott A; Sivey P; Ait Ouakrim D; Willenberg L; Naccarella L; Furler J; Young D
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2011 Sep; (9):CD008451. PubMed ID: 21901722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. After Online Innovators Receive Performance-Contingent Material Rewards: A Study Based on an Open Innovation Platform.
    Chu Y; Qi G; Wang K; Xu F
    Behav Sci (Basel); 2024 Aug; 14(8):. PubMed ID: 39199119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Understanding a Nonlinear Causal Relationship Between Rewards and Physicians' Contributions in Online Health Care Communities: Longitudinal Study.
    Wang JN; Chiu YL; Yu H; Hsu YT
    J Med Internet Res; 2017 Dec; 19(12):e427. PubMed ID: 29269344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Does platform type matter? A semantic analysis of user attitude formation on online platforms.
    Zhang L; Zhan G; Li Q; Ren J
    Front Psychol; 2022; 13():1005429. PubMed ID: 36324787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. NeuO: Exploiting the sentimental bias between ratings and reviews with neural networks.
    Xu Y; Yang Y; Han J; Wang E; Zhuang F; Yang J; Xiong H
    Neural Netw; 2019 Mar; 111():77-88. PubMed ID: 30690286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A new approach to expert reviewer detection and product rating derivation from online experiential product reviews.
    Sarkar AR; Ahmad S
    Heliyon; 2021 Jul; 7(7):e07409. PubMed ID: 34307936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Understanding the factors influencing health professionals' online voluntary behaviors: Evidence from YiXinLi, a Chinese online health community for mental health.
    Zhou J; Zuo M; Ye C
    Int J Med Inform; 2019 Oct; 130():103939. PubMed ID: 31434043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Examining the Effect of Knowledge Seeking on Knowledge Contribution in Q&A Communities.
    Qiu J; Mi Q; Xu Z; Ma S; Fu Y; Zhang T
    Behav Sci (Basel); 2024 Sep; 14(9):. PubMed ID: 39336068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review.
    Morey RD; Chambers CD; Etchells PJ; Harris CR; Hoekstra R; Lakens D; Lewandowsky S; Morey CC; Newman DP; Schönbrodt FD; Vanpaemel W; Wagenmakers EJ; Zwaan RA
    R Soc Open Sci; 2016 Jan; 3(1):150547. PubMed ID: 26909182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.
    Gasparyan AY; Gerasimov AN; Voronov AA; Kitas GD
    J Korean Med Sci; 2015 Apr; 30(4):360-4. PubMed ID: 25829801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Influence of intrinsic motivations on the continuity of scientific knowledge contribution to online knowledge-sharing platforms.
    Zhang L; Han Y; Zhou JL; Liu YS; Wu Y
    Public Underst Sci; 2021 May; 30(4):369-383. PubMed ID: 33183156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact of Surgeon Gender on Online Physician Reviews.
    Marrero K; King E; Fingeret AL
    J Surg Res; 2020 Jan; 245():510-515. PubMed ID: 31446193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals.
    Schroter S; Price A; Flemyng E; Demaine A; Elliot J; Harmston RR; Richards T; Staniszewska S; Stephens R
    BMJ Open; 2018 Sep; 8(9):e023357. PubMed ID: 30185581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey.
    Tite L; Schroter S
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 2007 Jan; 61(1):9-12. PubMed ID: 17183008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment.
    Zaharie MA; Seeber M
    Scientometrics; 2018; 117(3):1587-1609. PubMed ID: 30546171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.