ArticleFluids and barriers of the CNS2024
Modeling CSF circulation and the glymphatic system during infusion using subject specific intracranial pressures and brain geometries.
Article in Fluids and barriers of the CNS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dead-Space Microdomains as Explicit Barriers to Extracellular Drug Transport in Alzheimer's Disease.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- The impact of human brain geometry on the transport of an intrathecal tracer.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Article
- Modeling glioma-induced impairments on the glymphatic system.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Article
- Glymphatic Clearance in the Optic Nerve: A Multidomain Electro-Osmostic Model.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Glymphatic-Venous Axis in Brain Clearance Failure: Aquaporin-4 Dysfunction, Biomarker Imaging, and Precision Therapeutic Frontiers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Geometry Reduced Order Modeling (GROM) with application to modeling of glymphatic function.Brain research bulletin · 2025Article
- Predictive Digital Twins with Quantified Uncertainty for Patient-Specific Decision Making in Oncology.ArXiv · 2025Article
- Free water as a potential mediator linking basal ganglia peri-vascular spaces to white matter hyperintensities in cerebral small vessel disease.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Covert cerebrospinal fluid dynamics dysfunction: evolution from conventional to innovative therapies.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- A brain-wide solute transport model of the glymphatic system.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInfusion testing is an established method for assessing CSF resistance in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). To what extent the increased resistance is related to the glymphatic system is an open question. Here we introduce a computational model that includes the glymphatic system and enables us to determine the importance of (1) brain geometry, (2) intracranial pressure, and (3) physiological parameters on the outcome of and response to an infusion test.
methodsWe implemented a seven-compartment multiple network porous medium model with subject specific geometries from MR images using the finite element library FEniCS. The model consists of the arterial, capillary and venous blood vessels, their corresponding perivascular spaces, and the extracellular space (ECS). Both subject specific brain geometries and subject specific infusion tests were used in the modeling of both healthy adults and iNPH patients. Furthermore, we performed a systematic study of the effect of variations in model parameters.
resultsBoth the iNPH group and the control group reached a similar steady state solution when subject specific geometries under identical boundary conditions was used in simulation. The difference in terms of average fluid pressure and velocity between the iNPH and control groups, was found to be less than 6% during all stages of infusion in all compartments. With subject specific boundary conditions, the largest computed difference was a 75% greater fluid speed in the arterial perivascular space (PVS) in the iNPH group compared to the control group. Changes to material parameters changed fluid speeds by several orders of magnitude in some scenarios. A considerable amount of the CSF pass through the glymphatic pathway in our models during infusion, i.e., 28% and 38% in the healthy and iNPH patients, respectively.
conclusionsUsing computational models, we have found the relative importance of subject specific geometries to be less important than individual differences in resistance as measured with infusion tests and model parameters such as permeability, in determining the computed pressure and flow during infusion. Model parameters are uncertain, but certain variations have large impact on the simulation results. The computations resulted in a considerable amount of the infused volume passing through the brain either through the perivascular spaces or the extracellular space.
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.