ArticleFluids and barriers of the CNS2024
Numerical study of the effects of minor structures and mean velocity fields in the cerebrospinal fluid flow.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- How brain pulsations drive solute transport in the cranial subarachnoid space: insights from a toy model.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2026Article
- Patient-specific CFD modeling of CSF flow in Chiari I malformation: denticulate-ligament-induced compartmentalization explains flow patterns.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Article
- A 3D non-human primate digital model for pharmacokinetic prediction of intra-cerebrospinal fluid drug neuraxial dispersion.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2025Article
- Review
- On reduced-order modeling of drug dispersion in the spinal canal.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The importance of optimizing intrathecal drug delivery is highlighted by its potential to improve patient health outcomes. Findings from previous computational studies, based on an individual or a small group, may not be applicable to the wider population due to substantial geometric variability. Our study aims to circumvent this problem by evaluating an individual's cycle-averaged Lagrangian velocity field based on the geometry of their spinal subarachnoid space. It has been shown by Lawrence et al. (J Fluid Mech 861:679-720, 2019) that dominant physical mechanisms, such as steady streaming and Stokes drift, are key to facilitating mass transport within the spinal canal. In this study, we computationally modeled pulsatile cerebrospinal fluid flow fields and Lagrangian velocity field within the spinal subarachnoid space. Our findings highlight the essential role of minor structures, such as nerve roots, denticulate ligaments, and the wavy arachnoid membrane, in modulating flow and transport dynamics within the spinal subarachnoid space. We found that these structures can enhance fluid transport. We also emphasized the need for particle tracking in computational studies of mass transport within the spinal subarachnoid space. Our research illuminates the relationship between the geometry of the spinal canal and transport dynamics, characterized by a large upward cycle-averaged Lagrangian velocity zone in the wider region of the geometry, as opposed to a downward zone in the narrower region and areas close to the wall. This highlights the potential for optimizing intrathecal injection protocols by harnessing natural flow dynamics within the spinal canal.
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.