ArticlePloS one2024
Cerebro-spinal flow pattern in the cervical subarachnoid space of healthy volunteers: Influence of the spinal cord morphology.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cerebrospinal fluid mechanics across CNS barriers: from production, circulation, and clearance to mechanomedicine.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionToward further cerebro-spinal flow quantification in clinical practice, this study aims at assessing the variations in the cerebro spinal fluid flow pattern associated with change in the morphology of the subarachnoid space of the cervical canal of healthy humans by developing a computational fluid dynamics model.
methods3D T2-space MRI sequence images of the cervical spine were used to segment 11 cervical subarachnoid space. Model validation (time-step, mesh size, size and number of boundary layers, influences of parted inflow and inflow continuous velocity) was performed a 40-year-old patient-specific model. Simulations were performed using computational fluid dynamics approach simulating transient flow (Sparlart-Almaras turbulence model) with a mesh size of 0.6, 6 boundary layers of 0.05 mm, a time step of 20 ms simulated on 15 cycles. Distributions of components velocity and WSS were respectively analyzed within the subarachnoid space (intervertebral et intravertebral levels) and on dura and pia maters.
resultsMean values cerebro spinal fluid velocity in specific local slices of the canal range between 0.07 and 0.17 m.s-1 and 0.1 and 0.3 m.s-1 for maximum values. Maximum wall shear stress values vary between 0.1 and 0.5 Pa with higher value at the middle of the cervical spine on pia mater and at the lower part of the cervical spine on dura mater. Intra and inter-individual variations of the wall shear stress were highlighted significant correlation gwith compression ratio (r = 0.76), occupation ratio and cross section area of the spinal cord.
conclusionThe inter-individual variability in term of subarachnoid canal morphology and spinal cord position influence the cerebro-spinal flow pattern, highlighting the significance of canal morphology investigation before surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.