Introduction to Versus Magnetic Applied

What is/are Versus Magnetic?

Versus Magnetic - OBJECTIVE Compare outcomes of posterior spinal fusion (PSF) versus magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGR) versus vertebral body tethers (VBT) in 8- to 11-year-old idiopathic early onset scoliosis (EOS) patients. ^[1] The evolution of screw (SCR) to CONE and FAN phase is precisely tracked from magnetization versus magnetic field/temperature measurements. ^[2] The microwave reflection coefficient versus magnetic field dependence has been calculated. ^[3] A competition between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic moments is evidenced at room temperature for both compounds by measuring the magnetization versus magnetic field. ^[4] Purpose: To evaluate the interobserver reliability of measurements of tibial slope on radiographs versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and to assess whether the modalities can be used interchangeably for this purpose. ^[5] Below 10 K, the film exhibits an M-shaped magnetocapacitance versus magnetic field curve, indicating unusual magnetoelectric coupling in the AFE phase. ^[6] The isothermal magnetizations versus magnetic field are obtained at different temperatures. ^[7] Purpose: To evaluate the value of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)-Arthrography (CBCT-A) versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for staging of osteochondral lesions of the talus. ^[8] We show that the obtained heat capacity Cmag formed by ultra spin liquid as a function of temperature T versus magnetic field B behaves very similar to the electronic specific heat Cel of the HF metal YbRh2Si2 and the quantum magnet ZnCu3(OH)6Cl2. ^[9] Magnetic measurements versus magnetic field reveal that the sample exhibits a second order magnetic phase transition. ^[10] Prominent magnetic field–induced variations in the Raman intensities of WS2 samples were observed, which also exhibited significant differences in the spectral evolution versus magnetic field. ^[11] Our study highlights the overall benchmarks for this disease and its management as well as the news on prenatal assessment of neonatal prognosis using Lung Over Head Ratio (LHR): ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the third world. ^[12] The resonant frequency versus magnetic field was measured in the range where the magnetization of a compass needle depends on the strength of an external magnetic field. ^[13] The magnetization (M) versus magnetic field (H) data were collected at room (300 K) and ultra-low (10 K) temperatures. ^[14] A detailed study of thickness and temperature-dependent magnetization versus magnetic field (M − H) hysteresis loops of Ni–Mn–In thin films has been performed to understand the complex TMR behavior. ^[15] For 5 mol% doping level, Bound Magnetic Polaron (BMP) model fitting of Magnetization versus magnetic field, M(H, 300 K) curve yields an exceptionally low level of BMP density i. ^[16] Materials and Methods: Fibroid Interventions: Reducing Symptoms Today and Tomorrow (FIRSTT), a randomized controlled trial of uterine artery embolization (UAE) versus magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS), enrolled premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine fibroids. ^[17] OBJECTIVES To evaluate the findings and compare the diagnostic yield of computed tomography (CT) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (BSNHL). ^[18] An increment in velocity field is noticed versus magnetic variable. ^[19] Magnetization versus magnetic field studies reveal that as Mn content increases, the saturation magnetization, remnant magnetization and coercive field values decreases which clearly indicates that the antiferromagnetic coupling gets strengthened. ^[20] The multiferroic behaviour of the composites is studied with polarization versus electric field (P-E) and magnetization versus magnetic field (M-H) characteristics at room temperature. ^[21] In some cases, the curves of pinning force versus magnetic field of the selected samples present peculiar profiles and application of the typical scaling procedures fails. ^[22] 0 K with quite soft magnetization versus magnetic field ( M – H ) characteristics in (Et-4BrT)[Ni(dmit) 2 ] 2 where Et-4BrT is ethyl-4-bromothiazolium. ^[23] An efficient method for inducing the ferromagnetic behavior from increasing the Co concentration from 2 to 6% was known from the magnetization versus magnetic field (M−H) curves at room temperature of the Co doped SnO2 samples. ^[24] Dielectric analysis reveals anomalies in the proximity of Néel temperature, indicating small magneto-electric coupling, which was confirmed through capacitance versus magnetic field measurements. ^[25] The relative high kinetic inductance of the SQUID loop, in the range of tens of nH, leads to a suppression of the modulation in the measured switching current versus magnetic flux, accompanied by a distortion towards a triangular shape. ^[26] The magnetocaloric effect is calculated from the measurement of initial isothermal magnetization versus magnetic field at various temperatures. ^[27] Temperature and associated layer upsurge versus magnetic parameter and Eckert number. ^[28] Magnetization versus magnetic field loops of samples at zero field cooled (ZFC) and field cooled (FC) modes at 5 K showed an instable behaviour in the low doping, while in high doping the magnetization curve of ZFC and FC overlapped, demonstrating the stable FM and AFM phases. ^[29] In agreement with previous results, we find reduced brightness with increasing mean magnetic flux when comparing the pixel-by-pixel continuum brightness versus magnetic field strength. ^[30] Objective: This work aimed to study the role of multidetector computerized tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of basal ganglia signal intensity alteration with highlight on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity of each tool in reaching the proper diagnosis. ^[31] Clinicians are therefore confronted with a number of potentially valid options such as endoscopic ultrasonography versus magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in order to diagnose suspected CBDS. ^[32] The magnetization versus magnetic field curves clearly indicate that the milled h-BN nanoplates exhibit distinct ferromagnetism, and their saturation magnetization increases monotonically from 0. ^[33] In addition, magnetic measurements, magnetization versus temperature, and magnetization versus magnetic field present ferromagnetic behavior. ^[34] The onset of ferromagnetism in a doped dielectric host is investigated in detail by observing magnetization versus magnetic field (M–H) data and magnetization versus temperature (M–T) curves recorded under zero field cooled and field cooled conditions. ^[35] The room temperature polarization (P)-electric field (E) hysteresis loop measurement shows week ferroelectric nature of sample while the magnetization (M) versus magnetic field (H) measurement suggest weakly ferromagnetic character. ^[36] Moreover, from magnetization measurements versus magnetic applied field, we studied the magnetocaloric effect (MCE) by the determination of the magnetic entropy change ΔSM. ^[37] As a function of the dopant concentrations (c), the polycrystalline NPs are characterized by XRD, Williamson-Hall plot, Rietveld refinement, UV–Vis spectroscopy, band-gap evaluation, dislocation density estimation, photoluminescence (PL) spectra, scanning electron microscopy (SEM),vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM) based magnetic moment (M) versus magnetic field (H) measurement, magnetic hysteresis measurement and resistivity (ρ) measurement. ^[38] The purpose of this study was to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of LNM of GBC. ^[39] RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To compare the cost of ultrasound (US) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using time-driven activity-based costing in adolescent female patients with suspected appendicitis. ^[40] The trial cohort was divided into 2 groups by qualifying imaging (computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging). ^[41] The in-plane Magnetization versus Magnetic field (M-H) curve at 5 K performs a typical ferri- or ferromagnetic hysteresis loop with a saturated magnetization (Ms) value of 136 emu/cm3. ^[42] T) and magnetization versus magnetic field (M vs. ^[43] The model for Galfenol rods can calculate the dynamic response versus magnetic field under various stress and temperature. ^[44] Due to the presence of bound magnetic polaron interaction mediated by defects like oxygen vacancy and zinc vacancy, both 2 and 5% Pr-doped ZnO nanoparticles show unsaturated hysteretic magnetization versus magnetic field loop at room temperature along with the presence of paramagnetic contribution. ^[45] The aim of the present study was to determine the validity of ultrasound (US) imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and fascia thickness. ^[46] The observed transient electromagnetic signals originate from the NiFe/Pt bilayer, and their amplitude dependence on the external magnetic field, applied in the sample plane, very closely follows the static magnetization versus magnetic field dependence of the NiFe film. ^[47] Tests of critical current versus magnetic field, field orientation, and strain have been done in support of the design. ^[48] 8 using magnetization versus magnetic field (M − H) curves. ^[49] Temperature dependence of magnetic entropy change, ΔSm(T), was calculated from magnetization versus magnetic curves, M(H), determined at various temperatures. ^[50]

Magnetization Versus Magnetic

The evolution of screw (SCR) to CONE and FAN phase is precisely tracked from magnetization versus magnetic field/temperature measurements. ^[1] A competition between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic moments is evidenced at room temperature for both compounds by measuring the magnetization versus magnetic field. ^[2] The isothermal magnetizations versus magnetic field are obtained at different temperatures. ^[3] A detailed study of thickness and temperature-dependent magnetization versus magnetic field (M − H) hysteresis loops of Ni–Mn–In thin films has been performed to understand the complex TMR behavior. ^[4] For 5 mol% doping level, Bound Magnetic Polaron (BMP) model fitting of Magnetization versus magnetic field, M(H, 300 K) curve yields an exceptionally low level of BMP density i. ^[5] Magnetization versus magnetic field studies reveal that as Mn content increases, the saturation magnetization, remnant magnetization and coercive field values decreases which clearly indicates that the antiferromagnetic coupling gets strengthened. ^[6] The multiferroic behaviour of the composites is studied with polarization versus electric field (P-E) and magnetization versus magnetic field (M-H) characteristics at room temperature. ^[7] 0 K with quite soft magnetization versus magnetic field ( M – H ) characteristics in (Et-4BrT)[Ni(dmit) 2 ] 2 where Et-4BrT is ethyl-4-bromothiazolium. ^[8] An efficient method for inducing the ferromagnetic behavior from increasing the Co concentration from 2 to 6% was known from the magnetization versus magnetic field (M−H) curves at room temperature of the Co doped SnO2 samples. ^[9] The magnetocaloric effect is calculated from the measurement of initial isothermal magnetization versus magnetic field at various temperatures. ^[10] Magnetization versus magnetic field loops of samples at zero field cooled (ZFC) and field cooled (FC) modes at 5 K showed an instable behaviour in the low doping, while in high doping the magnetization curve of ZFC and FC overlapped, demonstrating the stable FM and AFM phases. ^[11] The magnetization versus magnetic field curves clearly indicate that the milled h-BN nanoplates exhibit distinct ferromagnetism, and their saturation magnetization increases monotonically from 0. ^[12] In addition, magnetic measurements, magnetization versus temperature, and magnetization versus magnetic field present ferromagnetic behavior. ^[13] The onset of ferromagnetism in a doped dielectric host is investigated in detail by observing magnetization versus magnetic field (M–H) data and magnetization versus temperature (M–T) curves recorded under zero field cooled and field cooled conditions. ^[14] The in-plane Magnetization versus Magnetic field (M-H) curve at 5 K performs a typical ferri- or ferromagnetic hysteresis loop with a saturated magnetization (Ms) value of 136 emu/cm3. ^[15] T) and magnetization versus magnetic field (M vs. ^[16] Due to the presence of bound magnetic polaron interaction mediated by defects like oxygen vacancy and zinc vacancy, both 2 and 5% Pr-doped ZnO nanoparticles show unsaturated hysteretic magnetization versus magnetic field loop at room temperature along with the presence of paramagnetic contribution. ^[17] The observed transient electromagnetic signals originate from the NiFe/Pt bilayer, and their amplitude dependence on the external magnetic field, applied in the sample plane, very closely follows the static magnetization versus magnetic field dependence of the NiFe film. ^[18] 8 using magnetization versus magnetic field (M − H) curves. ^[19] Temperature dependence of magnetic entropy change, ΔSm(T), was calculated from magnetization versus magnetic curves, M(H), determined at various temperatures. ^[20] The magnetic parameters like Ms (saturation magnetization), SQR = Mr/Ms (squareness ratio), nB (magnetic moment), Hc (coercivity) and Mr (remanence) have been evaluated by analyzing measurements of magnetization versus magnetic field performed at room (RT; T = 300 K) and low (T = 10 K) temperatures. ^[21] We analyze the magnetization versus magnetic field curves of Fe-based nanoparticles embedded inside CNT. ^[22] The analyses of magnetization versus magnetic field, M(H), were performed. ^[23] The magnetocaloric impact is calculated through the measurement of initial isothermal magnetization versus magnetic applied field at various temperatures. ^[24]

Tomography Versus Magnetic

Objective: This work aimed to study the role of multidetector computerized tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of basal ganglia signal intensity alteration with highlight on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity of each tool in reaching the proper diagnosis. ^[1] The trial cohort was divided into 2 groups by qualifying imaging (computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging). ^[2]

Measurement Versus Magnetic

Magnetic measurements versus magnetic field reveal that the sample exhibits a second order magnetic phase transition. ^[1] Moreover, from magnetization measurements versus magnetic applied field, we studied the magnetocaloric effect (MCE) by the determination of the magnetic entropy change ΔSM. ^[2]

versus magnetic field

The evolution of screw (SCR) to CONE and FAN phase is precisely tracked from magnetization versus magnetic field/temperature measurements. ^[1] The microwave reflection coefficient versus magnetic field dependence has been calculated. ^[2] A competition between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic moments is evidenced at room temperature for both compounds by measuring the magnetization versus magnetic field. ^[3] Below 10 K, the film exhibits an M-shaped magnetocapacitance versus magnetic field curve, indicating unusual magnetoelectric coupling in the AFE phase. ^[4] The isothermal magnetizations versus magnetic field are obtained at different temperatures. ^[5] We show that the obtained heat capacity Cmag formed by ultra spin liquid as a function of temperature T versus magnetic field B behaves very similar to the electronic specific heat Cel of the HF metal YbRh2Si2 and the quantum magnet ZnCu3(OH)6Cl2. ^[6] Magnetic measurements versus magnetic field reveal that the sample exhibits a second order magnetic phase transition. ^[7] Prominent magnetic field–induced variations in the Raman intensities of WS2 samples were observed, which also exhibited significant differences in the spectral evolution versus magnetic field. ^[8] The resonant frequency versus magnetic field was measured in the range where the magnetization of a compass needle depends on the strength of an external magnetic field. ^[9] The magnetization (M) versus magnetic field (H) data were collected at room (300 K) and ultra-low (10 K) temperatures. ^[10] A detailed study of thickness and temperature-dependent magnetization versus magnetic field (M − H) hysteresis loops of Ni–Mn–In thin films has been performed to understand the complex TMR behavior. ^[11] For 5 mol% doping level, Bound Magnetic Polaron (BMP) model fitting of Magnetization versus magnetic field, M(H, 300 K) curve yields an exceptionally low level of BMP density i. ^[12] Magnetization versus magnetic field studies reveal that as Mn content increases, the saturation magnetization, remnant magnetization and coercive field values decreases which clearly indicates that the antiferromagnetic coupling gets strengthened. ^[13] The multiferroic behaviour of the composites is studied with polarization versus electric field (P-E) and magnetization versus magnetic field (M-H) characteristics at room temperature. ^[14] In some cases, the curves of pinning force versus magnetic field of the selected samples present peculiar profiles and application of the typical scaling procedures fails. ^[15] 0 K with quite soft magnetization versus magnetic field ( M – H ) characteristics in (Et-4BrT)[Ni(dmit) 2 ] 2 where Et-4BrT is ethyl-4-bromothiazolium. ^[16] An efficient method for inducing the ferromagnetic behavior from increasing the Co concentration from 2 to 6% was known from the magnetization versus magnetic field (M−H) curves at room temperature of the Co doped SnO2 samples. ^[17] Dielectric analysis reveals anomalies in the proximity of Néel temperature, indicating small magneto-electric coupling, which was confirmed through capacitance versus magnetic field measurements. ^[18] The magnetocaloric effect is calculated from the measurement of initial isothermal magnetization versus magnetic field at various temperatures. ^[19] Magnetization versus magnetic field loops of samples at zero field cooled (ZFC) and field cooled (FC) modes at 5 K showed an instable behaviour in the low doping, while in high doping the magnetization curve of ZFC and FC overlapped, demonstrating the stable FM and AFM phases. ^[20] In agreement with previous results, we find reduced brightness with increasing mean magnetic flux when comparing the pixel-by-pixel continuum brightness versus magnetic field strength. ^[21] The magnetization versus magnetic field curves clearly indicate that the milled h-BN nanoplates exhibit distinct ferromagnetism, and their saturation magnetization increases monotonically from 0. ^[22] In addition, magnetic measurements, magnetization versus temperature, and magnetization versus magnetic field present ferromagnetic behavior. ^[23] The onset of ferromagnetism in a doped dielectric host is investigated in detail by observing magnetization versus magnetic field (M–H) data and magnetization versus temperature (M–T) curves recorded under zero field cooled and field cooled conditions. ^[24] The room temperature polarization (P)-electric field (E) hysteresis loop measurement shows week ferroelectric nature of sample while the magnetization (M) versus magnetic field (H) measurement suggest weakly ferromagnetic character. ^[25]

versus magnetic resonance

Purpose: To evaluate the interobserver reliability of measurements of tibial slope on radiographs versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and to assess whether the modalities can be used interchangeably for this purpose. ^[1] Purpose: To evaluate the value of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)-Arthrography (CBCT-A) versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for staging of osteochondral lesions of the talus. ^[2] Our study highlights the overall benchmarks for this disease and its management as well as the news on prenatal assessment of neonatal prognosis using Lung Over Head Ratio (LHR): ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the third world. ^[3] Materials and Methods: Fibroid Interventions: Reducing Symptoms Today and Tomorrow (FIRSTT), a randomized controlled trial of uterine artery embolization (UAE) versus magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS), enrolled premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine fibroids. ^[4] OBJECTIVES To evaluate the findings and compare the diagnostic yield of computed tomography (CT) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in children with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (BSNHL). ^[5] Objective: This work aimed to study the role of multidetector computerized tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of basal ganglia signal intensity alteration with highlight on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity of each tool in reaching the proper diagnosis. ^[6] The purpose of this study was to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of LNM of GBC. ^[7] RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To compare the cost of ultrasound (US) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using time-driven activity-based costing in adolescent female patients with suspected appendicitis. ^[8] The trial cohort was divided into 2 groups by qualifying imaging (computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging). ^[9] The aim of the present study was to determine the validity of ultrasound (US) imaging versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for measuring anterior thigh muscle, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), and fascia thickness. ^[10] PurposeAssessment of the role of ultrasonography (USG) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and evaluation of wrist painResultsOut of 50 patients, 35 males (70%) and 15 females (30%) (age range 12–62 years; mean = 31. ^[11]

versus magnetic applied

Moreover, from magnetization measurements versus magnetic applied field, we studied the magnetocaloric effect (MCE) by the determination of the magnetic entropy change ΔSM. ^[1] The magnetocaloric impact is calculated through the measurement of initial isothermal magnetization versus magnetic applied field at various temperatures. ^[2]