I’m reading a back journal. I’ve still got about 5 I didn’t get around to reading last year. This is Very Interesting. I thought it would be very dry, and in fact the details of method etc are dry, but the concept of glaucoma being somehow related to cerebrospinal fluid flow is definitely interesting. Looking in the literature, people seem to have been playing with this idea for about 5 years or so now.

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13116

buffy said:

I’m reading a back journal. I’ve still got about 5 I didn’t get around to reading last year. This is Very Interesting. I thought it would be very dry, and in fact the details of method etc are dry, but the concept of glaucoma being somehow related to cerebrospinal fluid flow is definitely interesting. Looking in the literature, people seem to have been playing with this idea for about 5 years or so now.

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13116

First thing I want to look up in the paper is how they measured or calculated the flow rate of cerebrospinal fluid. Functional MRI could do it if it could get down to flow velocities low enough. Or use other measurement (eg. constructions) together with CFD computation.

> Invasive CT cisternography is the only method available to demonstrate CSF dynamics

Um, what is cisternography when it’s at home?

> Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) provides a non-invasive information …

That’s other measurement together with a computational model.

> When comparing the FRR results of the affected ON (MD≥4 dB or optic disk aspect, n=24 eyes: mean±SD: 0.55±0.08)

I’m getting mixed up with all the abbreviations. Perhaps buffy can elucidate. How many healthy eyes, how many with glaucoma, how many with normal, high and low cerebrospinal flow? What correlation?

mollwollfumble said:

buffy said:

I’m reading a back journal. I’ve still got about 5 I didn’t get around to reading last year. This is Very Interesting. I thought it would be very dry, and in fact the details of method etc are dry, but the concept of glaucoma being somehow related to cerebrospinal fluid flow is definitely interesting. Looking in the literature, people seem to have been playing with this idea for about 5 years or so now.

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13116

First thing I want to look up in the paper is how they measured or calculated the flow rate of cerebrospinal fluid. Functional MRI could do it if it could get down to flow velocities low enough. Or use other measurement (eg. constructions) together with CFD computation.

> Invasive CT cisternography is the only method available to demonstrate CSF dynamics

Um, what is cisternography when it’s at home?

> Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) provides a non-invasive information …

That’s other measurement together with a computational model.

> When comparing the FRR results of the affected ON (MD≥4 dB or optic disk aspect, n=24 eyes: mean±SD: 0.55±0.08)

I’m getting mixed up with all the abbreviations. Perhaps buffy can elucidate. How many healthy eyes, how many with glaucoma, how many with normal, high and low cerebrospinal flow? What correlation?

Have a look at the abstract. It’s a very small trial. I think they were just trying to see if it could be done. It’s more the concept that interests me. Glaucoma has “traditionally” been described in terms of increased intra-ocular pressure, possibly related to pressure differentials in blood and eye fluids. But then these folk are saying…hang on…the optic nerve is surrounded by cerebrospinal fluid, like the brain is, there might be something going on there in terms of pressures/flows etc. It’s been some time since people have been starting to think the increase intra-ocular pressure might just be a reaction to something else. It’s the something else that is elusive.

Did you two get your paper accepted anywhere?

sibeen said:

Did you two get your paper accepted anywhere?

No. Ultimately they wouldn’t accept it unless we could produce ethics approval. Which is not possible when you are not an institution. I advised them that the records used were mine, from my private practice, but no, there had to be some sort of formal ethics documentation.

buffy said:

sibeen said:

Did you two get your paper accepted anywhere?

No. Ultimately they wouldn’t accept it unless we could produce ethics approval. Which is not possible when you are not an institution. I advised them that the records used were mine, from my private practice, but no, there had to be some sort of formal ethics documentation.

I could write you up something.

Buffy is a grouse chick and wouldn’t do nuthin wrong. Print her paper, you bastards.

sibeen said:

buffy said:

sibeen said:

Did you two get your paper accepted anywhere?

No. Ultimately they wouldn’t accept it unless we could produce ethics approval. Which is not possible when you are not an institution. I advised them that the records used were mine, from my private practice, but no, there had to be some sort of formal ethics documentation.

I could write you up something.

Buffy is a grouse chick and wouldn’t do nuthin wrong. Print her paper, you bastards.

I considered making something up. Not all journals wanted that. Some just said…you know, we’ve got sooo many papers, and this isn’t quite our remit…try somewhere else. One had two reviewers, one of whom said “needs a bit of tidying up” and the other said “load of shit”. I actually think I know who those reviewers were, and that was political. I gave up. Moll wanted to think about submitting to Nature, but we’ve not gone down that track.

buffy said:

sibeen said:

buffy said:

No. Ultimately they wouldn’t accept it unless we could produce ethics approval. Which is not possible when you are not an institution. I advised them that the records used were mine, from my private practice, but no, there had to be some sort of formal ethics documentation.

I could write you up something.

Buffy is a grouse chick and wouldn’t do nuthin wrong. Print her paper, you bastards.

I considered making something up. Not all journals wanted that. Some just said…you know, we’ve got sooo many papers, and this isn’t quite our remit…try somewhere else. One had two reviewers, one of whom said “needs a bit of tidying up” and the other said “load of shit”. I actually think I know who those reviewers were, and that was political. I gave up. Moll wanted to think about submitting to Nature, but we’ve not gone down that track.

I tried a rewrite on my own, for submission somewhere important, like Nature Letters. I ended up with all the figures I wanted, but when I tried to put words to them, the words wouldn’t come at all.

mollwollfumble said:

buffy said:

sibeen said:

I could write you up something.

Buffy is a grouse chick and wouldn’t do nuthin wrong. Print her paper, you bastards.

I considered making something up. Not all journals wanted that. Some just said…you know, we’ve got sooo many papers, and this isn’t quite our remit…try somewhere else. One had two reviewers, one of whom said “needs a bit of tidying up” and the other said “load of shit”. I actually think I know who those reviewers were, and that was political. I gave up. Moll wanted to think about submitting to Nature, but we’ve not gone down that track.

I tried a rewrite on my own, for submission somewhere important, like Nature Letters. I ended up with all the figures I wanted, but when I tried to put words to them, the words wouldn’t come at all.

Do you want me to have a go at the word bit?

Yes.

mollwollfumble said:

Yes.

Check your emails.