Header Logo

Connection

Co-Authors

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications co-authored by FUNDA MERIC-BERNSTAM and ELMER BERNSTAM.
FUNDA MERIC-BERNSTAM
Connection Strength
3.620
ELMER BERNSTAM
  1. Commonly cited website quality criteria are not effective at identifying inaccurate online information about breast cancer. Cancer. 2008 Mar 15; 112(6):1206-13.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.328
  2. Currency of online breast cancer information. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007; 129(Pt 2):973-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.301
  3. Usability of quality measures for online health information: Can commonly used technical quality criteria be reliably assessed? Int J Med Inform. 2005 Aug; 74(7-8):675-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.267
  4. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform. 2005 Jan; 74(1):13-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.262
  5. Artificial intelligence in clinical and translational science: Successes, challenges and opportunities. Clin Transl Sci. 2022 02; 15(2):309-321.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.211
  6. Rate of change in investigational treatment options: An analysis of reports from a large precision oncology decision support effort. Int J Med Inform. 2020 11; 143:104261.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.194
  7. Correction: A feasibility study of returning clinically actionable somatic genomic alterations identified in a research laboratory. Oncotarget. 2019 Aug 27; 10(50):5254.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.181
  8. Physician interpretation of genomic test results and treatment selection. Cancer. 2018 03 01; 124(5):966-972.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.160
  9. A feasibility study of returning clinically actionable somatic genomic alterations identified in a research laboratory. Oncotarget. 2017 Jun 27; 8(26):41806-41814.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.156
  10. Patient knowledge and information-seeking about personalized cancer therapy. Int J Med Inform. 2016 Apr; 88:52-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.141
  11. A decision support framework for genomically informed investigational cancer therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Jul; 107(7).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.134
  12. Attitudes toward molecular testing for personalized cancer therapy. Cancer. 2015 Jan 15; 121(2):243-50.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.128
  13. Attitudes regarding privacy of genomic information in personalized cancer therapy. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Oct; 21(e2):e320-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.125
  14. Adapting a natural language processing tool to facilitate clinical trial curation for personalized cancer therapy. AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2014; 2014:126-31.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.125
  15. Career track of Society of University Surgeons Resident Research Award recipients. J Surg Res. 2013 Nov; 185(1):92-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.117
  16. Accuracy and self correction of information received from an internet breast cancer list: content analysis. BMJ. 2006 Apr 22; 332(7547):939-42.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.071
  17. Searching for cancer-related information online: unintended retrieval of complementary and alternative medicine information. Int J Med Inform. 2005 Aug; 74(7-8):685-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  18. Efficacy of quality criteria to identify potentially harmful information: a cross-sectional survey of complementary and alternative medicine web sites. J Med Internet Res. 2004 Jun 29; 6(2):e21.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.063
  19. Inter-observer agreement for quality measures applied to online health information. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004; 107(Pt 2):1308-12.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  20. Cancer-related complementary and alternative medicine online: factors affecting information retrieval. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004; 107(Pt 2):1318-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  21. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ. 2002 Mar 09; 324(7337):577-81.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.054
  22. Recommendations for patient similarity classes: results of the AMIA 2019 workshop on defining patient similarity. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 11 01; 27(11):1808-1812.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  23. OCTANE: Oncology Clinical Trial Annotation Engine. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 07; 3:1-11.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  24. Cancer-Related Internet Use and Its Association With Patient Decision Making and Trust in Physicians Among Patients in an Early Drug Development Clinic: A Questionnaire-Based Cross-Sectional Observational Study. J Med Internet Res. 2019 03 14; 21(3):e10348.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  25. Rapamycin?-?mTOR?+?BRAF?=?? Using relational similarity to find therapeutically relevant drug-gene relationships in unstructured text. J Biomed Inform. 2019 02; 90:103094.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  26. Cancer-Related Internet Use and Online Social Networking Among Patients in an Early-Phase Clinical Trials Clinic at a Comprehensive Cancer Center. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2018 12; 2:1-14.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  27. Precision Oncology Decision Support: Current Approaches and Strategies for the Future. Clin Cancer Res. 2018 06 15; 24(12):2719-2731.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  28. "Personalized Cancer Therapy": A Publicly Available Precision Oncology Resource. Cancer Res. 2017 11 01; 77(21):e123-e126.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.040
  29. Automated identification of molecular effects of drugs (AIMED). J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 07; 23(4):758-65.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  30. Extracting genetic alteration information for personalized cancer therapy from ClinicalTrials.gov. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 07; 23(4):750-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  31. Using Ontology Fingerprints to disambiguate gene name entities in the biomedical literature. Database (Oxford). 2015; 2015:bav034.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.