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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8224604)

  • 1. A statistical model validating triage for the peer review process: keeping the competitive applications in the review pipeline.
    Vener KJ; Feuer EJ; Gorelic L
    FASEB J; 1993 Nov; 7(14):1312-9. PubMed ID: 8224604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.
    Pier EL; Brauer M; Filut A; Kaatz A; Raclaw J; Nathan MJ; Ford CE; Carnes M
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 Mar; 115(12):2952-2957. PubMed ID: 29507248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. How Criterion Scores Predict the Overall Impact Score and Funding Outcomes for National Institutes of Health Peer-Reviewed Applications.
    Eblen MK; Wagner RM; RoyChowdhury D; Patel KC; Pearson K
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0155060. PubMed ID: 27249058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research.
    Kotchen TA; Lindquist T; Malik K; Ehrenfeld E
    JAMA; 2004 Feb; 291(7):836-43. PubMed ID: 14970062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An analysis of preliminary and post-discussion priority scores for grant applications peer reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH.
    Martin MR; Kopstein A; Janice JM
    PLoS One; 2010 Nov; 5(11):e13526. PubMed ID: 21103331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Assessing health research grant applications: A retrospective comparative review of a one-stage versus a two-stage application assessment process.
    Morgan B; Yu LM; Solomon T; Ziebland S
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(3):e0230118. PubMed ID: 32163468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Outcomes of National Institutes of Health peer review of clinical grant applications.
    Kotchen TA; Lindquist T; Miller Sostek A; Hoffmann R; Malik K; Stanfield B
    J Investig Med; 2006 Jan; 54(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 16409886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Structure and process of federal funding for AD research.
    Wells N; Hurley AC
    Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord; 1999; 13 Suppl 1():S117-9. PubMed ID: 10369531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer review: influence of internal and external reviewers and committees.
    Hodgson C
    Can J Cardiol; 1995 Nov; 11(10):864-8. PubMed ID: 7489524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Funding for patient-oriented research. Critical strain on a fundamental linchpin.
    Williams GH; Wara DW; Carbone P
    JAMA; 1997 Jul; 278(3):227-31. PubMed ID: 9218670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Characterization of the peer review network at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health.
    Boyack KW; Chen MC; Chacko G
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(8):e104244. PubMed ID: 25119140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Unique Review Criteria and Patient and Stakeholder Reviewers: Analysis of PCORI's Approach to Research Funding.
    Forsythe LP; Frank LB; Tafari AT; Cohen SS; Lauer M; Clauser S; Goertz C; Schrandt S
    Value Health; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1152-1160. PubMed ID: 30314615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Urology peer review at the National Institutes of Health.
    Olsson CA; Kennedy WA
    J Urol; 1995 Nov; 154(5):1866-9. PubMed ID: 7563369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity.
    Fang FC; Bowen A; Casadevall A
    Elife; 2016 Feb; 5():. PubMed ID: 26880623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH.
    Lauer MS; Nakamura R
    N Engl J Med; 2015 Nov; 373(20):1893-5. PubMed ID: 26559568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada.
    Tamblyn R; Girard N; Qian CJ; Hanley J
    CMAJ; 2018 Apr; 190(16):E489-E499. PubMed ID: 29685909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores.
    Lindner MD; Nakamura RK
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0126938. PubMed ID: 26039440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Trends in program project grant funding at the National Cancer Institute.
    Broder S; Cushing M
    Cancer Res; 1993 Feb; 53(3):477-84. PubMed ID: 8425180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Outcomes of early NIH-funded investigators: Experience of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
    Haggerty PA; Fenton MJ
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(9):e0199648. PubMed ID: 30208016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Influence of external peer reviewer scores for funding applications on funding board decisions: a retrospective analysis of 1561 reviews.
    Sorrell L; Mcardle N; Becque T; Payne H; Stuart B; Turner S; Wyatt JC
    BMJ Open; 2018 Dec; 8(12):e022547. PubMed ID: 30552251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.