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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32065035)

  • 21. Psychological expert witness testimony and judicial decision making trends.
    Shapiro DL; Mixon L; Jackson M; Shook J
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():149-53. PubMed ID: 26341310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Ten years of judicial gatekeeping under Daubert.
    Cecil JS
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S74-80. PubMed ID: 16030342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A cognitive scientist looks at Daubert.
    Lakoff GP
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S114-20. PubMed ID: 16030326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The merits of the paternalistic justification for restrictions on the admissibility of expert evidence.
    Sanders J
    Seton Hall Law Rev; 2003; 33(4):881-941. PubMed ID: 14626262
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Science and regulation: current impasse and future solutions.
    Hoppin PJ; Clapp R
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S8-S12. PubMed ID: 16030343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. How tobacco-friendly science escapes scrutiny in the courtroom.
    Friedman LC; Daynard RA; Banthin CN
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S16-20. PubMed ID: 16030332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Expert evidence, the adversary system, and the jury.
    Vidmar N
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S137-43. PubMed ID: 16030330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Neurolitigation: a perspective on the elements of expert testimony for extending the Daubert challenge.
    Klee CH; Friedman HJ
    NeuroRehabilitation; 2001; 16(2):79-85. PubMed ID: 11568465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Expert witness testimony: the problem and recommendations for oversight and reform.
    McHenry CR; Biffl WL; Chapman WC; Spain DA
    Surgery; 2005 Mar; 137(3):274-8. PubMed ID: 15746775
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evidence-based medicine and tort law.
    Foucar E; Wick MR
    Semin Diagn Pathol; 2005 May; 22(2):167-76. PubMed ID: 16639995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Expert bioethics testimony.
    Latham SR
    J Law Med Ethics; 2005; 33(2):242-7. PubMed ID: 16083083
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The use of evidence and cost effectiveness by the courts: how can it help improve health care?
    Eddy DM
    J Health Polit Policy Law; 2001 Apr; 26(2):387-408. PubMed ID: 11330086
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Trial and error: the Supreme Court's philosophy of science.
    Haack S
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S66-73. PubMed ID: 16030341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Regulatory parallels to Daubert: stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards.
    Neff RA; Goldman LR
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S81-91. PubMed ID: 16030344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Bringing scholarship to the courtroom: the Daubert decision and its impact on the Teratology Society.
    Brent RL
    Teratology; 1995 Nov; 52(5):247-51. PubMed ID: 8838247
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Epistemology in the courtroom: a little "knowledge" is a dangerous thing.
    Ozonoff D
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S13-5. PubMed ID: 16030329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A Daubert motion: a legal strategy to exclude essential scientific evidence in toxic tort litigation.
    Melnick RL
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S30-4. PubMed ID: 16030335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Admissibility of scientific evidence post-Daubert.
    Masten J; Strzelczyk JJ
    Health Phys; 2001 Dec; 81(6):678-82. PubMed ID: 11725886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Expert testimony by ethicists: what should be the norm?
    Imwinkelried EJ
    J Law Med Ethics; 2005; 33(2):198-221. PubMed ID: 16083080
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The perils of relying on interested parties to evaluate scientific quality.
    Wagner W
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S99-106. PubMed ID: 16030346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.