The phrase "as reviewed in section" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to a specific section of a document or report where something has been discussed or analyzed.
Example: "The findings of the study are significant, as reviewed in section 3 of the report."
Alternatives: "as discussed in section" or "as outlined in section".
As reviewed in Section 2.2,, the number of available projection directions, is lower than the class number :.
As reviewed in Section 3, the IWMMSE algorithm can obtain at least a locally optimal solution to the original sum-rate maximization problem (4).
As reviewed in Section 2.2, the malign attributes of r ~ which we have to deal with are potentially heavy-tailed error distributions and non-stationary spatially correlated errors due to diffraction, multi-path, or similar.
MRP2 is also regulated by numerous NRs as reviewed in section " Nuclear receptors".
A wide range of measures exist to assess the four stages of mental imagery (Kosslyn, 1980, 1994; Kosslyn et al., 2006) as reviewed in Section 2.
However, the hypothesis of a lower BMR is contradicted by ample evidence (as reviewed in Section II.11) for sauropods having been tachymetabolic endotherms, at least during the phase of active growth lasting for most of their life history.
More-precise models will require replacement of the association constants K ij, which are contained in the terms b ijk in eq 14, by the 3D-QSAR models for protein binding, as reviewed in sections −.
Jackendoff (2007: 220-223) provides a list of psychological verbs and adjectives, further categorized into five morphological types, as will be reviewed in Section 2.4.
Resort to Bayesian reasoning principles, as we reviewed in Section 3.1, is the standard way of trying to incorporate such uncertainty into theories of rational, strategic decision.
Several coordination strategies have been proposed (as briefly reviewed in Section 2), but none of these solutions are capable of adapting the MAC strategy dynamically to the context.
As reviewed in Results section, every existing predictive model for asthma development in children has a low AUC, a low sensitivity, and/or a low positive predictive value, typically all much less than 80%%.
