↓ Skip to main content

Is bulk flow plausible in perivascular, paravascular and paravenous channels?

Overview of attention for article published in Fluids and Barriers of the CNS, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is bulk flow plausible in perivascular, paravascular and paravenous channels?
Published in
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12987-018-0103-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad M. Faghih, M. Keith Sharp

Abstract

Transport of solutes has been observed in the spaces surrounding cerebral arteries and veins. Indeed, transport has been found in opposite directions in two different spaces around arteries. These findings have motivated hypotheses of bulk flow within these spaces. The glymphatic circulation hypothesis involves flow of cerebrospinal fluid from the cortical subarachnoid space to the parenchyma along the paraarterial (extramural, Virchow-Robin) space around arteries, and return flow to the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) space via paravenous channels. The second hypothesis involves flow of interstitial fluid from the parenchyma to lymphatic vessels along basement membranes between arterial smooth muscle cells. This article evaluates the plausibility of steady, pressure-driven flow in these channels with one-dimensional branching models. According to the models, the hydraulic resistance of arterial basement membranes is too large to accommodate estimated interstitial perfusion of the brain, unless the flow empties to lymphatic ducts after only several generations (still within the parenchyma). The estimated pressure drops required to drive paraarterial and paravenous flows of the same magnitude are not large, but paravenous flow back to the CSF space means that the total pressure difference driving both flows is limited to local pressure differences among the different CSF compartments, which are estimated to be small. Periarterial flow and glymphatic circulation driven by steady pressure are both found to be implausible, given current estimates of anatomical and fluid dynamic parameters.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Master 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 17 30%
Engineering 11 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2018.
All research outputs
#9,061,532
of 15,790,955 outputs
Outputs from Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
#90
of 201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,398
of 277,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,790,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 201 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,792 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them