Sentence examples for literature figures from inspiring English sources

In the literature, figures ranging from 4%to9%9% have been reported [8, 9, 27].

In the literature, figures of high-risk underestimate for 14-gauge needle biopsy range from 14 to 58%.

Our lower arch values were all comparable to those reported in the literature (Figure 11).

Our modifications to the Mai- Beroza approach include the use of a larger grid spacing (i.e. 10 to 25 km) in comparison with the original method (i.e. 1 km) and nonlinear transformation of the synthesised slip distributions to generate heavy right-tail characteristics found in the original slip distributions (i.e. source inversion models as published in the literature; Figure 1).

We measured spike responses to a variety of physiological EPSC shapes with values of rise and decay times reported in the literature (Figure 2A,B).

Two HNF4A promoters have been identified, one with kidney and liver expression (downstream, but called P1 in the literature) and one with pancreatic-specific expression (upstream, but called P2 in the literature) (Figure S3).

NRAS was associated with 16 GOIs, KRAS, MMP2 and MMP9 with 15 GOI, TGFβ1 with 14 GOIs, ARAF with 13 GOIs, EGF with 6 GOIs and RKIP/PEBP1 with 5 of the GOIs, according to the literature (Figure S4).

Additionally, we performed parallel transduction experiments with human keratinocytes and fibroblasts, and found that the observed reprogramming efficiencies and kinetics correlated with what has been previously reported in the literature (Figure 2C, data not shown) [2], [3], [13].

Briefly, experimental data reporting the effect of GAGs on the kinetics of amyloid fibril formation were collected from previously published articles using a precise and rigorous method, after an extensive search of the literature (Figure 1, step 1).

These data linked the glp-4 mutation to a 235 Kb region on the right arm of chromosome I containing 97 predicted genes, which overlaps with the predicted glp-4 location described in the literature (Figure 4).

There was no strong evidence of publication bias for the epidemiological studies based on a visual inspection of the funnel plot, although there is some asymmetry suggesting smaller studies with negative associations might be under-represented in the literature (Figure 3).