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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35186273)

  • 41. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency.
    Witteman HO; Hendricks M; Straus S; Tannenbaum C
    Lancet; 2019 Feb; 393(10171):531-540. PubMed ID: 30739688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU's Seventh Framework Programme for Research.
    Pina DG; Hren D; Marušić A
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0130753. PubMed ID: 26126111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Peer review of nursing research proposals.
    Lindquist RD; Tracy MF; Treat-Jacobson D
    Am J Crit Care; 1995 Jan; 4(1):59-65. PubMed ID: 7894558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Biosciences Proposal Bootcamp: Structured peer and faculty feedback improves trainees' proposals and grantsmanship self-efficacy.
    Botham CM; Brawn S; Steele L; Barrón CB; Kleppner SR; Herschlag D
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(12):e0243973. PubMed ID: 33370337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. European science: EC grant applicants need fuller feedback.
    Wasserman D
    Nature; 2014 Nov; 515(7526):198. PubMed ID: 25391954
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Indeed: Cost of the NSERC science grant peer review system exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant.
    Gordon R; Poulin BJ
    Account Res; 2009 Jul; 16(4):232-3. PubMed ID: 20183164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Overview of the Grant Writing Workshop From the GRAPPA 2020 Annual Meeting.
    Ogdie A; Ritchlin CT
    J Rheumatol Suppl; 2021 Jun; 97():17-18. PubMed ID: 34074660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant.
    Gordon R; Poulin BJ
    Account Res; 2009; 16(1):13-40. PubMed ID: 19247851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. An evidence-based guide to writing grant proposals for clinical research.
    Inouye SK; Fiellin DA
    Ann Intern Med; 2005 Feb; 142(4):274-82. PubMed ID: 15710960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Peer review of grant applications: a simple method to identify proposals with discordant reviews.
    Giraudeau B; Leyrat C; Le Gouge A; Léger J; Caille A
    PLoS One; 2011; 6(11):e27557. PubMed ID: 22110670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis.
    Burns KEA; Straus SE; Liu K; Rizvi L; Guyatt G
    PLoS Med; 2019 Oct; 16(10):e1002935. PubMed ID: 31613898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Funding: Got to get a grant.
    Kaplan K
    Nature; 2012 Feb; 482(7385):429-31. PubMed ID: 22338701
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Grant application outcomes for biomedical researchers who participated in the National Research Mentoring Network's Grant Writing Coaching Programs.
    Weber-Main AM; McGee R; Eide Boman K; Hemming J; Hall M; Unold T; Harwood EM; Risner LE; Smith A; Lawson K; Engler J; Steer CJ; Buchwald D; Jones HP; Manson SM; Ofili E; Schwartz NB; Vishwanatha JK; Okuyemi KS
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(11):e0241851. PubMed ID: 33166315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. How to write an educational research grant: AMEE Guide No. 101.
    Blanco MA; Gruppen LD; Artino AR; Uijtdehaage S; Szauter K; Durning SJ
    Med Teach; 2016; 38(2):113-22. PubMed ID: 26524428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Understanding the NIH review process: a brief guide to writing grant proposals in neurotoxicology.
    Audesirk G; Burbacher T; Guilarte TR; Laughlin NK; Lopachin R; Suszkiw J; Tilson H
    Neurotoxicology; 1999 Feb; 20(1):91-7. PubMed ID: 10091862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery.
    Fang FC; Casadevall A
    mBio; 2016 Apr; 7(2):e00422-16. PubMed ID: 27073093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol).
    Galipeau J; Moher D; Skidmore B; Campbell C; Hendry P; Cameron DW; Hébert PC; Palepu A
    Syst Rev; 2013 Jun; 2():41. PubMed ID: 23773340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The modified lottery: Formalizing the intrinsic randomness of research funding.
    De Peuter S; Conix S
    Account Res; 2022 Jul; 29(5):324-345. PubMed ID: 33970719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Grant lottery systems: a winner responds.
    Ackerley D
    Nature; 2020 Mar; 579(7799):343. PubMed ID: 32184488
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. YICAP/ECAP international young investigators paper and grant writing workshop.
    Mudra S; Völker U; Schweren L; Wessing I; Seitz J
    Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry; 2015 Feb; 24(2):247-8. PubMed ID: 25502870
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.