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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37002316)

  • 21. Differentiating Between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Voters Using Facets of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social-Dominance Orientation.
    Crowson HM; Brandes JA
    Psychol Rep; 2017 Jun; 120(3):364-373. PubMed ID: 28558614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Moral-Language Use by U.S. Political Elites.
    Wang SN; Inbar Y
    Psychol Sci; 2021 Jan; 32(1):14-26. PubMed ID: 33306432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Using Facebook data to predict the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
    Chang KC; Chiang CF; Lin MJ
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(12):e0253560. PubMed ID: 34851951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Hillary Clinton takes up defense of U.S. aid for family planning overseas.
    Cohen SA
    Wash Memo Alan Guttmacher Inst; 1996 Dec; (10):2-3. PubMed ID: 12291982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Exposure to televised political campaign advertisements aired in the United States 2015-2016 election cycle and psychological distress.
    Niederdeppe J; Avery RJ; Liu J; Gollust SE; Baum L; Barry CL; Welch B; Tabor E; Lee NW; Fowler EF
    Soc Sci Med; 2021 May; 277():113898. PubMed ID: 33848716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. #
    Mendiburo-Seguel A; Alenda S; Ford TE; Olah AR; Navia PD; Argüello-Gutiérrez C
    Front Sociol; 2022; 7():788742. PubMed ID: 35433924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content on social media among political leaders.
    Brady WJ; Wills JA; Burkart D; Jost JT; Van Bavel JJ
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2019 Oct; 148(10):1802-1813. PubMed ID: 30589291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Projected fantasies and the political process: toward understanding why Hillary lost.
    Kibel HD
    Int J Group Psychother; 2012 Jan; 62(1):91-119. PubMed ID: 22229370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. #Election2020: the first public Twitter dataset on the 2020 US Presidential election.
    Chen E; Deb A; Ferrara E
    J Comput Soc Sci; 2022; 5(1):1-18. PubMed ID: 33824934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Changes in subjective well-being following the U.S. Presidential election of 2016.
    Lench HC; Levine LJ; Perez KA; Carpenter ZK; Carlson SJ; Tibbett T
    Emotion; 2019 Feb; 19(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 29494200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A comparative framework to analyze convergence on Twitter electoral conversations.
    Cárdenas-Sánchez D; Sampayo AM; Rodríguez-Prieto M; Feged-Rivadeneira A
    Sci Rep; 2022 Nov; 12(1):19062. PubMed ID: 36352010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Speaking two "Languages" in America: A semantic space analysis of how presidential candidates and their supporters represent abstract political concepts differently.
    Li P; Schloss B; Follmer DJ
    Behav Res Methods; 2017 Oct; 49(5):1668-1685. PubMed ID: 28718087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior.
    Eady G; Paskhalis T; Zilinsky J; Bonneau R; Nagler J; Tucker JA
    Nat Commun; 2023 Jan; 14(1):62. PubMed ID: 36624094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Nursing Organizations' Health Policy Content on Facebook and Twitter Preceding the 2016 United States Presidential Election.
    Waddell A
    J Adv Nurs; 2019 Jan; 75(1):119-128. PubMed ID: 30109719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The limited reach of fake news on Twitter during 2019 European elections.
    Cinelli M; Cresci S; Galeazzi A; Quattrociocchi W; Tesconi M
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(6):e0234689. PubMed ID: 32555659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Raising Awareness About Cervical Cancer Using Twitter: Content Analysis of the 2015 #SmearForSmear Campaign.
    Lenoir P; Moulahi B; Azé J; Bringay S; Mercier G; Carbonnel F
    J Med Internet Res; 2017 Oct; 19(10):e344. PubMed ID: 29038096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail: What the Election Means for U.S. Health Care, and the Health of American Democracy.
    Doherty RB
    Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc; 2017; 128():258-271. PubMed ID: 28790510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Artificial Intelligence-Based Approach for Misogyny and Sarcasm Detection from Arabic Texts.
    Muaad AY; Jayappa Davanagere H; Benifa JVB; Alabrah A; Naji Saif MA; Pushpa D; Al-Antari MA; Alfakih TM
    Comput Intell Neurosci; 2022; 2022():7937667. PubMed ID: 35378816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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