Sentence examples for both methods are given from inspiring English sources

Regression statistics for both methods are given in Table 5.

The sample size and power formulas of both methods are given.

Both methods were given according to standardized protocols.

In this paper a brief introduction to both methods is given.

The quantitative comparison of both methods is given in Table 2, in which the results of the C-V method are regarded as baseline foreground regions (we take ten iterations (for the inner loop) to obtain the optimal results of the C-V method; but we still take one iteration (just as done in [12]) to achieve the optimal speed of the C-V method).

Key regions are summarised in Tables 2 and 3 while a more comprehensive catalogue, encompassing the union of both methods is given in Table S2.

On the task of specificity determinant prediction, a variant of INTREPID, INTREPID-SPEC, was as accurate as the GroupSim method proposed by Capra and Singh (2008) when both methods were given subtype information.

(The equations for calculating the particle agglomeration number using both the methods are given in Appendix A).

And both of two methods are given practice tests through triaxial thermal error experiments of actual machine.

> -wrap-foot> Numbers of periodontitis cases derived using both the AAP/CDC and PTP methods are given in Table  2 by age and sex.

The first procedure described is a simple endpoint assay, and methods are given for both adherent and nonadherent cells.