We study the non-minimal inflation with both the large Field and Small Field potentials in the context of the new observational data. We analyze the linear and non-linear perturbations to obtain the scalar spectral index, tensor-to-scalar ratio, and nonlinearity parameter. By performing a numerical analysis on the scalar spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio, and comparing the results with Planck2018 TT, TE, EE+lowE+lensing+BAO+BK14(18) data, we find that the non-minimal large Field inflation is observationally viable if the non-minimal coupling parameter is of the order of $10^{-3}$. The same analysis on the non-minimal Small Field inflation gives the values for the non-minimal coupling parameter as $10^{-4}$. We also study the non-Gaussian features in both equilateral and orthogonal configurations for large and Small Field potentials and find Small values for these amplitudes, consistent with Planck2018 TTT, EEE, TTE and EET data. We show that the absolute values of the non-linearity parameter, $f_{NL}$, is larger in large Field inflation than the Small Field model for both configurations. Also, we obtain more severe constraints on the parameter $p$ in the introduced large Field and Small Field potentials with respect to previously reported constraints.

Purpose: Despite the clinical advances made in magnetic resonance imaging with high static magnetic Fields (1. 5T and more), open MRI with low Field (0. 2-0. 5T) has recently attracted the attention of researchers. Low-Field MRI (LF-MRI) has both advantages and disadvantages over high-Field units. It enables the scanning of anxious patients and children who cannot tolerate enclosed high-Field scanners due to discomfort. The open configuration of the LF-MRI provides a spacious examination environment. It also allows the safe imaging of metallic devices owing to the lower static Field and radiofrequency. While image quality is degraded compared to high-Field MRI due to a lower signal-to-noise ratio, technological advances may help address this limitation. This review aims to provide a comprehensive outline of the current applications, technical aspects, and evidence supporting the diagnostic accuracy of Low-Field MRI. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted in Google Scholar and PubMed from 2021 to the oresent using the search term "low Field MRI" limited to the title. Studies were excluded if only on high-Field MRI, not in English, or conference abstracts without full text. After applying exclusion criteria, 32 relevant articles remained for analysis. Results: The results showed that portable low-Field MRI expanded the availability of MRI beyond fixed facilities. One study found that 0. 55T MRI had an accuracy similar to 1. 5T for microbleed detection, suggesting its potential as an efficient alternative for stroke diagnosis. The literature has demonstrated the utility of low-Field MRI in applications such as musculoskeletal, breast, and abdominal imaging. Conclusion: In conclusion, these studies demonstrated the potential of low-Field MRI as a cost-efficient alternative to high-Field MRI for several clinical applications. The reduced costs and accessibility afforded by low-Field designs have positioned this technology to increase diagnostic MRI access globally. However, further validation of diagnostic performance and cost-utility analyses accounting for accuracy are still needed.

Background: Small photon beams are increasingly used in modern radiotherapy modalities. In Small photon Fields, the dosimetric Field size will deviate from the nominal Field size. An effective Field size (FSeff) for use in Small Field dosimetry has been defined to overcome this issue. The present study aims to investigate the suitability of two ionization chambers and two semiconductor diodes in the measurement of 6MV photon beam profiles and to analyze the variations of FSeff in Smaller Fields. Materials and Methods: Measurements were made at 6 MV photon beams of a Siemens Artiste linear accelerator and transverse profiles were acquired for nominal square Field sizes of side 1×1 to 10×10 cm2 via the irradiation of detectors and radiochromic film. Full width at half maximum (FWHM) at the 50% isodose level was used to calculate FSeff. Results: The uncertainty of the FWHM values derived from the in-plane and cross-plane profiles (Δ, FWHM%) were below 6% for all the detectors were below 6% except for Semiflex in the 1×1 Field size. In Small Field sizes (less than 3 × 3 cm2), larger differences occurred between the dosimetric and nominal Field sizes in all detectors. No significant differences between nominal and effective Field sizes were observed in a Field rage of 4×4-10×10 cm2. Conclusion: In the acquisition of Small Field profiles, selection of an appropriate detector is influential in accurate measurements. The findings of present study support the argument that both the size and composition of detectors affect the Small Field profile measurements.

With the advent of complex and precise radiation therapy techniques, the use of relatively Small Fields is needed. Using such Field sizes can cause uncertainty in dosimetry; therefore, special attention is required both in dose calculations and measurements. There are several challenges in Small‑ Field dosimetry such as the steep gradient of the radiation Field, volume averaging effect, lack of charged particle equilibrium, partial occlusion of radiation source, beam alignment, and unable to use a reference dosimeter. Due to these challenges, special dosimeters are needed for Small‑ Field dosimetry, and this review article discusses this topic.