Talk:Cerebrospinal fluid/Archive 1

How does CSF disseminate?

like where does it go? does it dry like he said? or leak out of our bodies? or do tiny aliens siphon it from our brains? just wondering really. Thejakeman 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh?... this is somewhat confusing and I suspect incorrect -

CSF returns to the vascular system primarily along the olfactory tracts and into the lymphatic channels of the nasal mucosa. CSF also drains along cranial and spinal nerve roots. At high intercranial pressures CSF flows into the venous system by the arachnoid granulations. [1]

According to my copy of Moore, CSF enters the venous sytem by moving through the arachnoid granulations into the dural sinuses (eg the sup. sag. sinus) Ezuku 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

"CSF movement allows arterial expansion and contraction by acting like a spring, which prevents wide changes in intracranial blood flow." ...HUH?! Can someone explain this statement? Liquids are not very compressible. I am curious about the various effects of CSF flow, with repect to research in craniosacral therapy. Paul@svacina.com (www.svacina.com)

I think what this person means (or at least what they should mean) is CSF pressure, not flow. Basicly as CSF pressure increases, cerebral blood flow will decrease (or a higher cerebral profusion pressure (= mean arterial pressure - intracranial pressure) will be needed to maintain the current flow).

Has anyone seen any reliable reaserch about the interelationship of mind-altering drugs and the flow of CSF fluid? I have also heard that the drying up of the CSF liquid is what ultimately causes the deterioration of the body in old age, and that certain inhalents might be able to reverse or slow that process. I think there is a lot of very exciting work that can be done in this area, and I was wondering if there is any underway.

I thought spinal fluid was final...

Well it says in the article it is produced "500 ml/day" then how is it final and won't come back please someone explain to me this does your body always keep making spinal fluid or is it final you lose it it's gone forever?

Please answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.107.105 (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "final". CSF is produced at the rate you mentioned but resorbed at the same rate. There is therefore an equilibrium, unless of course these is a discrepancy between the rates. Removing CSF by lumbar puncture is therefore not a disaster - when the headache is gone the body has already produced more CSF to replace whatever was removed. JFW | T@lk 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Guideline

The ESFN has produced a guideline on "routine" CSF analysis. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2006.01493.x (free too). JFW | T@lk 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Normal CSF flow physiology" removed

I have deleted the above-named section today, because it was a word-for-word insertion of the abstract of this paper. The paper was cited, but that's not fair use. looie496 (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Followup: I have also removed the "MRI of CSF flow in pathology" section, written by the same editor, because it was poorly written and follows a pattern of COI that he showed in all of his edits. (He only edited for about two weeks back in June.) looie496 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Very useful reference

This is a very useful reference. Basket of Puppies 22:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some sort of pointer to it would be nice to have in the article. Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Brain Juice??

Really? Who placed that in the first sentence? I removed it. I hope it was a joke to begin with.

Irutavias (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fluid has negative mass???

"The actual weight of the human brain is about 1400 grams, however the net weight of the brain suspended in the cerebrospinal fluid is 25 grams."

Brain suspended in fluid = Brain - 1375g. This doesn't seem right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.21.88 (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See Archimedes' principle 81.187.162.109 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference 12 is a dead link

It gets a 404 error - perhaps we should find a different source, or fix the link? Perfect Purple Pyramid (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like 13 is also nonfunctional. It's not clear to me that these tables belong in our article in the first place -- they don't seem very encyclopedic. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Glucose vs lactate

Why is there so much more lactate in CSF? Know it's elementary, but maybe it's worth mentioning. I found a use for it, but I can't reason my way out of it. What pathologies are related to excessive lactate in CSF? Madskile (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

High lactate (>6mM) in CSF is indicative of bacterial meningitides. DreadedDr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.67.103.10 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with medical articles on Wikipedia:

The following is a single paragraph from this article, with all the terms highlighted that don’t make any sense to a reader, unless he already is an expert on the subject:

CSF is produced in the brain by modified ependymal cells in the choroid plexus (approx. 50-70%), and the remainder is formed around blood vessels and along ventricular walls. It circulates from the lateral ventricles to the foramen of Monro (Interventricular foramen), third ventricle, aqueduct of Sylvius (Cerebral aqueduct), fourth ventricle, foramen of Magendie (Median aperture) and foramina of Luschka (Lateral apertures); subarachnoid space over brain and spinal cord. CSF is reabsorbed into venous sinus blood via arachnoid granulations.

What’s the point of creating an article that’s useless unless you already know what’s in there? In which case it’s useless too.

And the worst part: If I try to look up those terms on Wikipedia, I find that all those articles use the same gibberish. Ending up in a exponentially growing tree of infinite loops.
I can’t imagine a more effective way to prevent someone from ever learning about what he wants to know than this. EPIC FAIL.

And it’s all just because some people think they would be something better when they use foreign (mostly Latin or Greek) words instead of normal words like a normal human being. Because of their damn god complex and disgusting arrogance. Despite them just being practical chemistry monkeys.

­— 88.77.185.206 (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Indented line Relax, you have to start somewhere. You will end up in an exponentially growing tree of knowledge! not infinite loops. Lansey (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Geez, not a god-complex or arrogance. I agree that the terms are complicated and confusing, but they are used so the exact feature/structure/condition can be understood by those who are trained in it. Some of the structures they refer to are very hard to describe or point out as they are embedded in a very complex 3D structure. You will find the info you want, but will need to spend the time...or start watching Doogie Howser. DreadedDr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.67.103.10 (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cerebrospinal fluid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150810152125/http://pathcuric1.swmed.edu/PathDemo/nrrt.htm to http://pathcuric1.swmed.edu/PathDemo/nrrt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cerebrospinal fluid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150810152125/http://pathcuric1.swmed.edu/PathDemo/nrrt.htm to http://pathcuric1.swmed.edu/PathDemo/nrrt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Ischemia

The cerebrospinal fluid has many putative roles including [...] prevention of brain ischemia. [...] The prevention of brain ischemia is made by decreasing the amount of cerebrospinal fluid in the limited space inside the skull.

So, the fluid prevents brain ischemia by decreasing the amount of itself within the skull. Could someone please rewrite for clarity? Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The fluid doesn't decrease the amount of itself. As I understand it - during systole the blood enters the cranium and slightly expands the brain and the CSF serves as a buffer and it is displaced from the cranium into the area around the spinal cord, where it pushes on the vertebral venous plexus.--213.149.51.210 (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

CSF relationship to BBB

It seems like a few sentences should be added explaining the relationship of CSF with regard to the blood brain barrier. I don't think I saw any formal statement that blood constituents found in the CSF via filtration from plasma must cross the blood brain barrier. Realizing this is the case could be important for non-scientists trying to better understand the CSF from a broader perspective. GusDin (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment @GusDin. Wikipedia is made by volunteers like you or I, and I encourage you to make these edits :). If there's anything that I can do to help, please let me know. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

SAS?

The article says "The flow of CSF to the nasal submucosal lymphatic channels through the cribriform plate seems to be especially important.[6] The Orešković and Klarica hypothesis, on the other hand, suggests that the CSF does not flow unidirectionally to cortical SAS to..."

So, what is SAS? I suppose it must stand for Sub-Arachnoid Something, but a search of Wikipedia or Google doesn't reveal what the Something is. Could someone supply this gloss, before the first use of SAS? 66.215.34.6 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done It is spelt out in the ref. --Iztwoz (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)