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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9072799)

  • 1. Rethinking grant peer review.
    Fliesler SJ
    Science; 1997 Mar; 275(5305):1399. PubMed ID: 9072799
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

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

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

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. On incentives for innovation.
    Alberts B
    Science; 2009 Nov; 326(5957):1163. PubMed ID: 19965437
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Likelihood of NIH extramural funding.
    Mandel HG; Vesell ES
    Science; 1999 Sep; 285(5434):1674-6. PubMed ID: 10523182
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. National Institutes of Health. Grants 'below payline' rise to help new investigators.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2009 Sep; 325(5948):1607. PubMed ID: 19779159
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Varmus speaks out on need to boost clinical research.
    Gavaghan H
    Nature; 1994 Nov; 372(6502):118. PubMed ID: 7969431
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Funding for the unexpected.
    Dwyer DS
    Science; 1999 Dec; 286(5449):2452. PubMed ID: 10636807
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 12. Looking to NSF as an NIH model.
    Yost WA
    Science; 2011 Aug; 333(6046):1093. PubMed ID: 21868657
    [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. NCI cuts contracts to fund more grants.
    Marshall E
    Science; 1996 Feb; 271(5251):901. PubMed ID: 8584924
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. IDeA: a program whose time has come.
    Capra JD
    Science; 2001 Nov; 294(5544):999. PubMed ID: 11695423
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. MRC commitments.
    Harvey SC
    Science; 1998 Feb; 279(5353):967-8. PubMed ID: 9490479
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A Nobel lesson: the grant behind the prize.
    Berg JM
    Science; 2008 Feb; 319(5865):900-1. PubMed ID: 18276870
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Biomedical research funding. A minority viewpoint.
    Price M
    Science; 2011 Aug; 333(6045):926. PubMed ID: 21852463
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.