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 *

145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 492248)

  • 1. The decline of NIH's peer-review system?
    Hecht F
    N Engl J Med; 1979 Nov; 301(19):1068. PubMed ID: 492248
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Guide to decision-making in institutional review of proposals for human experimentation: commentary.
    Rosensaft J
    Man Med; 1978; 3(3):213-20. PubMed ID: 10316738
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Guide to decision-making in institutional review of proposals for human experimentation.
    Himmelsbach CK; Sliwinski AJ; Lorber M; Mossman KL
    Man Med; 1978; 3(3):201-9. PubMed ID: 10316736
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Biomedical politics. Sex studies denounced, NIH's peer-review process defended.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2003 Nov; 302(5647):966-7. PubMed ID: 14605337
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Researchers discuss NIH's nanotechnology initiative.
    Fox JL
    Nat Biotechnol; 2000 Aug; 18(8):821. PubMed ID: 10932144
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Appropriations. House bill signals the end of NIH's double-digit growth.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2003 Jun; 300(5628):2019. PubMed ID: 12829757
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Gold out of lead? The NIH's new "financial management plan".
    Levine AS
    New Biol; 1991 Mar; 3(3):199-202. PubMed ID: 1878348
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. ASPB's response to the NIH's Public Access Policy.
    Raikhel NV; Ort D; Jorgensen R
    Plant Physiol; 2005 Jun; 138(2):540-1. PubMed ID: 15955908
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Scientific publishing. NIH's peer review stands up to scrutiny.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2015 Apr; 348(6233):384. PubMed ID: 25908803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The peer review system.
    Paque RE
    Fed Proc; 1980 May; 39(7):2350-1. PubMed ID: 7371872
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The peer review system.
    Homburger F
    Fed Proc; 1980 May; 39(7):2349-50. PubMed ID: 7371871
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The peer review system.
    Rutman JF
    Fed Proc; 1980 May; 39(7):2349. PubMed ID: 7371870
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review reviewed.
    Mehl JW
    Fed Proc; 1975 Aug; 34(9):i-iv. PubMed ID: 1149887
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Rethinking grant review.
    Nat Neurosci; 2008 Feb; 11(2):119. PubMed ID: 18227790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Stem cell lines. NIH's list of 64 leaves questions.
    Holden C
    Science; 2001 Aug; 293(5535):1567. PubMed ID: 11533448
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Does peer review at the US National Institutes of Health need modifying?
    Reprod Biomed Online; 2008 Feb; 16(2):238. PubMed ID: 18284879
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. March-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act: the NIH's paper tiger?
    O'Brien W
    Seton Hall Law Rev; 2013 Nov; 43(4):1403-32. PubMed ID: 24308083
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 2008 budget. Senators offer sympathetic ear to complaints on NIH's fiscal slide.
    Couzin J
    Science; 2007 Mar; 315(5819):1646. PubMed ID: 17379778
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Italy outsources peer review to NIH.
    Van Noorden R
    Nature; 2009 Jun; 459(7249):900. PubMed ID: 19536229
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Editorial: Judicium parium.
    Fishman AP
    N Engl J Med; 1974 Jan; 290(2):105-6. PubMed ID: 4808447
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.