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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33452666)

  • 21. Source credibility and syllogistic reasoning.
    Copeland DE; Gunawan K; Bies-Hernandez NJ
    Mem Cognit; 2011 Jan; 39(1):117-27. PubMed ID: 21264611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation.
    Ecker UK; Lewandowsky S; Tang DT
    Mem Cognit; 2010 Dec; 38(8):1087-100. PubMed ID: 21156872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The role of analytical reasoning and source credibility on the evaluation of real and fake full-length news articles.
    Pehlivanoglu D; Lin T; Deceus F; Heemskerk A; Ebner NC; Cahill BS
    Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2021 Mar; 6(1):24. PubMed ID: 33788040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Perceived truth of statements and simulated social media postings: an experimental investigation of source credibility, repeated exposure, and presentation format.
    Nadarevic L; Reber R; Helmecke AJ; Köse D
    Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2020 Nov; 5(1):56. PubMed ID: 33175284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Who is a credible source of preventive advice? An experimental vignette study of general public attitudes towards role expansion in health and social care.
    Bull ER; Mills M; Byrne-Davis LMT; Hart JK
    Br J Health Psychol; 2021 Feb; 26(1):198-213. PubMed ID: 32790002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. How Experts' Use of Medical Technical Jargon in Different Types of Online Health Forums Affects Perceived Information Credibility: Randomized Experiment With Laypersons.
    Zimmermann M; Jucks R
    J Med Internet Res; 2018 Jan; 20(1):e30. PubMed ID: 29362212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Failure to accept retractions: A contribution to the continued influence effect.
    O'Rear AE; Radvansky GA
    Mem Cognit; 2020 Jan; 48(1):127-144. PubMed ID: 31317393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Correcting statistical misinformation about scientific findings in the media: Causation versus correlation.
    Irving D; Clark RWA; Lewandowsky S; Allen PJ
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2022 Mar; 28(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 35007097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Assessing the Credibility and Authenticity of Social Media Content for Applications in Health Communication: Scoping Review.
    Jenkins EL; Ilicic J; Barklamb AM; McCaffrey TA
    J Med Internet Res; 2020 Jul; 22(7):e17296. PubMed ID: 32706675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Negative news dominates fast and slow brain responses and social judgments even after source credibility evaluation.
    Baum J; Abdel Rahman R
    Neuroimage; 2021 Dec; 244():118572. PubMed ID: 34508894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Examining the role of information integration in the continued influence effect using an event segmentation approach.
    Sanderson JA; Farrell S; Ecker UKH
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(7):e0271566. PubMed ID: 35849610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The continued influence of implied and explicitly stated misinformation in news reports.
    Rich PR; Zaragoza MS
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2016 Jan; 42(1):62-74. PubMed ID: 26147670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates.
    König L; Jucks R
    Public Underst Sci; 2019 May; 28(4):401-416. PubMed ID: 30843467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A meta-analytic review of health information credibility: Belief in physicians or belief in peers?
    Yang Q; Beatty M
    Health Inf Manag; 2016 Aug; 45(2):80-9. PubMed ID: 27105476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. When Sources Honestly Provide Their Biased Opinion: Bias as a Distinct Source Perception With Independent Effects on Credibility and Persuasion.
    Wallace LE; Wegener DT; Petty RE
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2020 Mar; 46(3):439-453. PubMed ID: 31282841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effective mitigation of the belief perseverance bias after the retraction of misinformation: Awareness training and counter-speech.
    Siebert J; Siebert JU
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(3):e0282202. PubMed ID: 36888583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Demographic Factors Influencing the Impact of Coronavirus-Related Misinformation on WhatsApp: Cross-sectional Questionnaire Study.
    Bapaye JA; Bapaye HA
    JMIR Public Health Surveill; 2021 Jan; 7(1):e19858. PubMed ID: 33444152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Believing in Expertise: How Authors' Credentials and Language Use Influence the Credibility of Online Health Information.
    Thon FM; Jucks R
    Health Commun; 2017 Jul; 32(7):828-836. PubMed ID: 27466693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effects of fact-checking social media vaccine misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines.
    Zhang J; Featherstone JD; Calabrese C; Wojcieszak M
    Prev Med; 2021 Apr; 145():106408. PubMed ID: 33388335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Does explaining the origins of misinformation improve the effectiveness of a given correction?
    Connor Desai S; Reimers S
    Mem Cognit; 2023 Feb; 51(2):422-436. PubMed ID: 36125658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.