Sentence examples for both methods are presented from inspiring English sources

Experimental results obtained by both methods are presented.

The success rates of both methods are presented in Tables 4 and 5.

Examples of kinematic modeling using both methods are presented in order to ease their comparison.

Two different approaches for the rat MMAs were used, and in this article the results from both methods are presented.

The experimental procedures of both methods are presented in the paper and are applied to a precipitation strengthened and creep deformed ferritic alloy with a complex microstructure.

The details of both methods are presented, and their implementation in a new hybrid (particle ion, massless fluid electron) algorithm is described.

In this case, a conjunction of both methods is presented.

The observers' agreement with "consensus" for both methods is presented in Fig. 6.

The comparison of both methods is presented in Figure  4 e.

A comparison of the top hit KEGG pathway generated from both methods was presented in Additional file 9, where a similar hit pattern of the over-representative genes in both methods were found.

The exact solution is u(x) = (1 − e− β(1 − r))/(1 − e− β).The root mean square (RMS) errors and the number of iterations both for CAGE and TAGE methods are presented in Table 1 for various values of β.