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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34335374)

  • 1. Effects of Choice Restriction on Accuracy and User Experience in an Internet-Based Geopolitical Forecasting Task.
    Widmer CL; Summerville A; Juvina I; Minnery BS
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():662279. PubMed ID: 34335374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The wisdom of many in few: Finding individuals who are as wise as the crowd.
    Himmelstein M; Budescu DV; Ho EH
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2023 May; 152(5):1223-1244. PubMed ID: 36862490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quantifying machine influence over human forecasters.
    Abeliuk A; Benjamin DM; Morstatter F; Galstyan A
    Sci Rep; 2020 Sep; 10(1):15940. PubMed ID: 32994447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Psychological strategies for winning a geopolitical forecasting tournament.
    Mellers B; Ungar L; Baron J; Ramos J; Gurcay B; Fincher K; Scott SE; Moore D; Atanasov P; Swift SA; Murray T; Stone E; Tetlock PE
    Psychol Sci; 2014 May; 25(5):1106-15. PubMed ID: 24659192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Using meta-predictions to identify experts in the crowd when past performance is unknown.
    Martinie M; Wilkening T; Howe PDL
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(4):e0232058. PubMed ID: 32330175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.
    Dietvorst BJ; Simmons JP; Massey C
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2015 Feb; 144(1):114-26. PubMed ID: 25401381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Motivated underpinnings of the impact bias in affective forecasts.
    Morewedge CK; Buechel EC
    Emotion; 2013 Dec; 13(6):1023-9. PubMed ID: 23914762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Using prediction polling to harness collective intelligence for disease forecasting.
    Sell TK; Warmbrod KL; Watson C; Trotochaud M; Martin E; Ravi SJ; Balick M; Servan-Schreiber E
    BMC Public Health; 2021 Nov; 21(1):2132. PubMed ID: 34801014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. ANNSTLF-a neural-network-based electric load forecasting system.
    Khotanzad A; Afkhami-Rohani R; Lu TL; Abaye A; Davis M; Maratukulam DJ
    IEEE Trans Neural Netw; 1997; 8(4):835-46. PubMed ID: 18255687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An Approach to Improve the Performance of PM Forecasters.
    de Mattos Neto PS; Cavalcanti GD; Madeiro F; Ferreira TA
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(9):e0138507. PubMed ID: 26414182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Compromising improves forecasting.
    Ferreiro DN; Deroy O; Bahrami B
    R Soc Open Sci; 2023 May; 10(5):221216. PubMed ID: 37206966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Marine Forecasting and Fishing Safety: Improving the Fit between Forecasts and Harvester Needs.
    Finnis J; Shewmake JW; Neis B; Telford D
    J Agromedicine; 2019 Oct; 24(4):324-332. PubMed ID: 31293225
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Recalibrating probabilistic forecasts of epidemics.
    Rumack A; Tibshirani RJ; Rosenfeld R
    PLoS Comput Biol; 2022 Dec; 18(12):e1010771. PubMed ID: 36520949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Premature predictions: Accurate forecasters are not viewed as more competent for earlier predictions.
    Mislavsky R; Gaertig C
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2024 Jan; 153(1):159-170. PubMed ID: 37870813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Identifying and cultivating superforecasters as a method of improving probabilistic predictions.
    Mellers B; Stone E; Murray T; Minster A; Rohrbaugh N; Bishop M; Chen E; Baker J; Hou Y; Horowitz M; Ungar L; Tetlock P
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2015 May; 10(3):267-81. PubMed ID: 25987508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A closer look at how experience, task domain, and self-confidence influence reliance towards algorithms.
    Jessup SA; Alarcon GM; Willis SM; Lee MA
    Appl Ergon; 2024 Nov; 121():104363. PubMed ID: 39096745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact bias or underestimation? Outcome specifications predict the direction of affective forecasting errors.
    Buechel EC; Zhang J; Morewedge CK
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2017 May; 146(5):746-761. PubMed ID: 28368193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Human and Algorithmic Predictions in Geopolitical Forecasting: Quantifying Uncertainty in Hard-to-Quantify Domains.
    Mellers BA; McCoy JP; Lu L; Tetlock PE
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2024 Sep; 19(5):711-721. PubMed ID: 37642169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. From discipline-centered rivalries to solution-centered science: Producing better probability estimates for policy makers.
    Mellers BA; Tetlock PE
    Am Psychol; 2019 Apr; 74(3):290-300. PubMed ID: 30945892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Human-model hybrid Korean air quality forecasting system.
    Chang LS; Cho A; Park H; Nam K; Kim D; Hong JH; Song CK
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2016 Sep; 66(9):896-911. PubMed ID: 27450767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.