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 *

230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7777040)

  • 1. NIH panel to monitor peer review in action.
    Taylor R
    Nature; 1995 Jun; 375(6531):438. PubMed ID: 7777040
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Peer review reviewed.
    Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7159):115. PubMed ID: 17851475
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. NIH pilots faster feedback for grant resubmissions.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 1997 Oct; 389(6654):898. PubMed ID: 9353109
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. NIH needs a makeover.
    Dey SK
    Science; 2009 Aug; 325(5943):944. PubMed ID: 19696331
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Revamp for NIH grants.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7182):1035. PubMed ID: 18305502
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. New rules propose greater scrutiny for NIH grant recipients.
    Dove A
    Nat Med; 2006 Jan; 12(1):5. PubMed ID: 16397535
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Why China needs an NIH.
    Nature; 2004 Apr; 428(6984):679. PubMed ID: 15085093
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. NIH budget. Peer review under stress.
    Miller G; Couzin J
    Science; 2007 Apr; 316(5823):358-9. PubMed ID: 17446364
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Peer review: NIH urged to streamline bids..
    Gavaghan H
    Nature; 1994 Jul; 370(6486):170-1. PubMed ID: 8028655
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Shortening of NIH RO1 grant applications: your response is important.
    Nairn RS; Sweasy JB
    DNA Repair (Amst); 2007 Jan; 6(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 17157082
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Federal work force. Can outsiders do better in managing NIH grants?
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2003 Mar; 299(5614):1823. PubMed ID: 12649448
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Grants, politics, and the NIH.
    Drazen JM; Ingelfinger JR
    N Engl J Med; 2003 Dec; 349(23):2259-61. PubMed ID: 14657434
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review. NIH urged to focus on new ideas, new applicants.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2008 Feb; 319(5867):1169. PubMed ID: 18309051
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. NIH: gearing up for the twenty-first century.
    Baldwin W; McCardle P
    Physiologist; 1997 Jun; 40(3):89, 91-3. PubMed ID: 9230629
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. National Institutes of Health. Panel weighs starter R01 grants.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2004 Jun; 304(5679):1891. PubMed ID: 15218117
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Looking to NSF as an NIH model.
    Yost WA
    Science; 2011 Aug; 333(6046):1093. PubMed ID: 21868657
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Science policy. The NIH budget in the "postdoubling" era.
    Korn D; Rich RR; Garrison HH; Golub SH; Hendrix MJ; Heinig SJ; Masters BS; Turman RJ
    Science; 2002 May; 296(5572):1401-2. PubMed ID: 12029114
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. National Institutes of Health. Two strikes and you're out, grant applicants learn.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2008 Oct; 322(5900):358. PubMed ID: 18927363
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. NIH revises rules of conflict of interest of grant peer reviewers.
    Shalev M
    Lab Anim (NY); 2004 Mar; 33(3):15-6. PubMed ID: 15235618
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.