Continuous positive airway pressure increases CSF flow and glymphatic transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiration can positively influence cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow in the brain, yet its effects on central nervous system (CNS) fluid homeostasis, including waste clearance function via glymphatic and meningeal lymphatic systems, remain unclear. Here, we investigated the effect of supporting respiratory function via continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on glymphatic-lymphatic function in spontaneously breathing anesthetized rodents. To do this, we used a systems approach combining engineering, MRI, computational fluid dynamics analysis, and physiological testing. We first designed a nasal CPAP device for use in the rat and demonstrated that it functioned similarly to clinical devices, as evidenced by its ability to open the upper airway, augment end-expiratory lung volume, and improve arterial oxygenation. We further showed that CPAP increased CSF flow speed at the skull base and augmented glymphatic transport regionally. The CPAP-induced augmented CSF flow speed was associated with an increase in intracranial pressure (ICP), including the ICP waveform pulse amplitude. We suggest that the augmented pulse amplitude with CPAP underlies the increase in CSF bulk flow and glymphatic transport. Our results provide insights into the functional crosstalk at the pulmonary-CSF interface and suggest that CPAP might have therapeutic benefit for sustaining glymphatic-lymphatic function.
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 | 0.000 | 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".