The phrase "a previous finding from" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when referring to a discovery or conclusion that was made in an earlier study or research.
Example: "A previous finding from the 2020 study indicated a significant correlation between diet and health outcomes."
Alternatives: "an earlier discovery from" or "a prior result from".
Even though this relationship was not significant (and is therefore difficult to interpret), it is reminiscent of a previous finding from our group that encoding-retrieval similarity during viewing of movies is negatively related to gamma power during retrieval in a significant subset of electrodes30.
This replicated a previous finding from our lab.
Bioavailability of NO has been proposed to be tonically involved in the restraint of central sympathetic outflow [39], [40], [41] which is in line with a previous finding from our group of an inverse relation between plasma nitrate level and sympathetic nerve activity in aging men [16].
This is lower than a previous finding from Uganda among HIV-positive rural mothers (17.7%) [ 23].
We did not replicate a previous finding from the AHS that suggested an association of chlorpyrifos with suicide (Lee et al. 2007).
This replicates in humans a previous finding from monkeys of a change in gain and sensitivity during reward processing determined by the range of likely reward prediction errors [Tobler et al., 2005].
Our finding that black women have increased odds of a pregnancy resulting in a stillbirth is in line with a previous finding that women from low SES households tend to have more adverse infant and child outcomes [ 26].
However, they are consistent with the previous finding from a case control study of an increase in the risk of breast cancer which is confined to post-menopausal breast cancer (Titus-Ernstoff et al, 2000).
This is higher than previous estimates of 4% 8 and 8%. 5 Our finding that only 31% of manuscripts provided a clear justification for using a cluster randomised design also seems positive in light of the previous finding from a review of 152 cluster randomised trials published from 1997 to 2000, which found that only 14% justified the use of a clustered design.
An improvement in productivity of this magnitude is consistent with our previous finding from a time-motion study that demonstrated that total time to complete a followup patient visit (including time before, during, and after the visit) decreased by 36%, from 25 minutes to 16 minutes.
BNC2 rs10756819 was not genome-wide significant but showed a consistent and nominally significant effect in all studied cohorts (p value <0.05); this therefore replicated our previous finding from a candidate gene study (Jacobs et al. 2012) suggesting that BNC2 influences subtle variation in skin color.
