Sentence examples for both methods is given from inspiring English sources

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.

Regression statistics for both methods are given in Table 5.

Both methods were given according to standardized protocols.

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

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.

A survey of existing methods is given.

Finally, an overview of numerical methods is given.

A comparison of devices and methods is given.

Numerical simulation confirming described methods is given in this paper.