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 *

222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33106408)

  • 21. Dimensions of pathological narcissism and intention to vote for Donald Trump.
    Yalch MM
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(4):e0249892. PubMed ID: 33857206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Symbolic disempowerment and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential election: Mental health responses among Latinx and white populations.
    Morey BN; García SJ; Nieri T; Bruckner TA; Link BG
    Soc Sci Med; 2021 Nov; 289():114417. PubMed ID: 34656819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. When a lack of passion intertwines with thought and action: Neutral feelings about COVID-19 are associated with U.S. presidential candidate attitudes and voting behavior.
    Park HJ; Hu D; Haynes E; Gasper K
    Emotion; 2021 Dec; 21(8):1796-1800. PubMed ID: 34843303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Critical noise can make the minority candidate win: The U.S. presidential election cases.
    Biswas S; Sen P
    Phys Rev E; 2017 Sep; 96(3-1):032303. PubMed ID: 29346990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: Variation in Regional Political Preferences Predicted New Prescriptions after President Trump's Endorsement.
    Madanay F; McDevitt RC; Ubel PA
    J Health Polit Policy Law; 2022 Aug; 47(4):429-451. PubMed ID: 35044458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. How an election loss leads to a social movement: Reactions to the 2016 U.S. presidential election among liberals predict later collective action and social movement identification.
    Bilali R; Godfrey EB; Freel SH
    Br J Soc Psychol; 2020 Jan; 59(1):227-247. PubMed ID: 31894871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The (un)making of electoral transparency through technology: The 2017 Kenyan presidential election controversy.
    Passanti C; Pommerolle ME
    Soc Stud Sci; 2022 Dec; 52(6):928-953. PubMed ID: 36154350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Presidential Elections and HIV-Related National Policies and Programs.
    Holtgrave DR; Bonacci RA; Valdiserri RO
    AIDS Behav; 2017 Mar; 21(3):611-614. PubMed ID: 28144791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Racism in Trump's America: reflections on culture, sociology, and the 2016 US presidential election.
    Bobo LD
    Br J Sociol; 2017 Nov; 68 Suppl 1():S85-S104. PubMed ID: 29114872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Demographic change and the 2016 presidential election.
    Maggio C
    Soc Sci Res; 2021 Mar; 95():102459. PubMed ID: 33653583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Using Elicited Choice Probabilities in Hypothetical Elections to Study Decisions to Vote.
    Delavande A; Manski CF
    Elect Stud; 2015 Jun; 38():28-37. PubMed ID: 25705068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Micro-Expressions of Fear During the 2016 Presidential Campaign Trail: Their Influence on Trait Perceptions of Donald Trump.
    Stewart PA; Svetieva E
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():608483. PubMed ID: 34149502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Public interest in Cannabis during election season: a Google Trends analysis.
    Torgerson T; Roberts W; Lester D; Khojasteh J; Vassar M
    J Cannabis Res; 2020 Sep; 2(1):31. PubMed ID: 33526135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Motivated reasoning: Election integrity beliefs, outcome acceptance, and polarization before, during, and after the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.
    Vail KE; Harvell-Bowman L; Lockett M; Pyszczynski T; Gilmore G
    Motiv Emot; 2023; 47(2):177-192. PubMed ID: 36188156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Precarious Manhood Predicts Support for Aggressive Policies and Politicians.
    DiMuccio SH; Knowles ED
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2021 Jul; 47(7):1169-1187. PubMed ID: 33048007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Universal vote-by-mail has no impact on partisan turnout or vote share.
    Thompson DM; Wu JA; Yoder J; Hall AB
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2020 Jun; 117(25):14052-14056. PubMed ID: 32518108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Forensic analysis of Turkish elections in 2017-2018.
    Klimek P; Jiménez R; Hidalgo M; Hinteregger A; Thurner S
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(10):e0204975. PubMed ID: 30289899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote.
    Mutz DC
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 May; 115(19):E4330-E4339. PubMed ID: 29686081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Sexism, racism, and nationalism: Factors associated with the 2016 U.S. presidential election results?
    Shook NJ; Fitzgerald HN; Boggs ST; Ford CG; Hopkins PD; Silva NM
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(3):e0229432. PubMed ID: 32150550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Quantifying the role of the COVID-19 pandemic in the 2020 U.S. presidential elections.
    De Lellis P; Ruiz Marín M; Porfiri M
    Eur Phys J Spec Top; 2022; 231(9):1635-1643. PubMed ID: 34725567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.