Lymphatic cerebrospinal fluid absorption pathways in neonatal sheep revealed by subarachnoid injection of Microfil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is mounting evidence that a significant portion of cerebrospinal fluid drainage is associated with transport along cranial and spinal nerves with absorption taking place into lymphatic vessels external to the central nervous system. To characterize these pathways further, yellow Microfil was infused into the cisterna magna of 2-7-day-old lambs post mortem to perfuse either the cranial or spinal subarachnoid compartments. In some animals, blue Microfil was perfused into the carotid arteries simultaneously. Microfil was observed in lymphatic networks in the nasal mucosa, covering the hard and soft palate, conchae, nasal septum, the ethmoid labyrinth and the lateral walls of the nasal cavity. Many of these lymphatics drained into vessels located on the lateroposterior wall of the nasopharynx and from this location drained to the retropharyngeal lymph nodes. Additionally, lymphatics containing Microfil penetrated the lateral wall of the nasal cavity and joined with superficial lymphatic ducts travelling towards the submandibular and preauricular lymph nodes. In two cases, lymphatic vessels were observed anastomosing with deep veins in the retropharyngeal area. Microfil was also distributed within the nerve trunks of cranial and spinal nerves. The contrast agent was located in longitudinal channels within the endoneurial space and lymphatics containing Microfil were observed emerging from the mesoneurium. In summary, Microfil distribution patterns in neonatal lambs illustrated the important role that cranial and spinal nerves play in linking the subarachnoid compartment with extracranial lymphatics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".