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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37870813)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 9. When and why people misestimate future feelings: Identifying strengths and weaknesses in affective forecasting.
    Lench HC; Levine LJ; Perez K; Carpenter ZK; Carlson SJ; Bench SW; Wan Y
    J Pers Soc Psychol; 2019 May; 116(5):724-742. PubMed ID: 30604985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Attractors: Incidental values that influence forecasts of change.
    Critcher CR; Rosenzweig EL
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2022 Feb; 151(2):475-492. PubMed ID: 34472959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. When does making detailed predictions make predictions worse?
    Kelly TF; Simmons JP
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2016 Oct; 145(10):1298-1311. PubMed ID: 27505154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Democratic forecast: Small groups predict the future better than individuals and crowds.
    Dezecache G; Dockendorff M; Ferreiro DN; Deroy O; Bahrami B
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2022 Sep; 28(3):525-537. PubMed ID: 35878072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Aggregating human judgment probabilistic predictions of the safety, efficacy, and timing of a COVID-19 vaccine.
    McAndrew T; Cambeiro J; Besiroglu T
    Vaccine; 2022 Apr; 40(15):2331-2341. PubMed ID: 35292162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. People express more bias in their predictions than in their likelihood judgments.
    Park I; Windschitl PD; Miller JE; Smith AR; Stuart JO; Biangmano M
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2023 Jan; 152(1):45-59. PubMed ID: 36048058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. A strategy to improve expert technology forecasts.
    Savage T; Davis A; Fischhoff B; Morgan MG
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2021 May; 118(21):. PubMed ID: 33990418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.