Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Noise-referenced multi-shell diffusion-weighted imaging for regional cerebrospinal fluid thermometry

Created on 04 Nov 2026

Authors

Behler, C., Breakspear, M., Ramadan, S., Dao, T. T., Close, T. G., Vos, S. B., Thienel, R., Giorgio, J., Behler, A., Fay, M.

Abstract

We developed a multi-shell diffusion-weighted imaging approach for separate ventricular and subarachnoid cerebrospinal fluid thermometry. The approach uses measured image noise to assess agreement among temperature estimates. In 12 participants, temperature was estimated from four non-zero diffusion weightings. For each voxel, disagreement between these estimates was compared with that expected from image noise, accounting for their shared reference image. Voxels meeting this consistency criterion were retained for regional analysis. Mean diffusion-derived temperature ({+/-} SD) was 38.4 {+/-} 0.4 {degrees}C in the lateral ventricles and 36.0 {+/-} 1.1 {degrees}C in the subarachnoid space. Ventricular estimates were consistently higher than subarachnoid estimates across all participants, with a mean difference of 2.4 {+/-} 1.2 {degrees}C (95% confidence interval 1.6 -3.1 {degrees}C). This difference persisted under alternative noise models and temperature estimators. Subarachnoid estimates increased with retained voxel count; in a post hoc analysis of the six participants with the largest retained counts, ventricular estimates remained higher by 1.6 {+/-} 0.7 {degrees}C. Absolute temperature accuracy and the physiological origin of the regional difference require independent validation. This approach provides an internal consistency check for CSF thermometry and supports separate assessment of ventricular and subarachnoid temperatures.

Preprint server: bioRxiv
The authors list and abstract were imported from bioRxiv on 04 Nov 2026.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this preprint? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 9
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement