Back

A Patient-Specific Electrical Twin of Intracranial Pressure Dynamics Validated by Clinical Infusion Tests

Herbowski, L.

2026-05-20 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.05.17.725750 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Understanding intracranial pressure (ICP) dynamics is essential for interpreting clinical infusion tests used in the diagnosis of cerebrospinal fluid circulation disorders. However, the complex coupling between vascular pulsations, cerebrospinal fluid flow, and intracranial compliance makes quantitative interpretation of these tests challenging. Here, I present a patient specific simulation framework based on an extended electrical analog model that reproduces intracranial pressure dynamics observed during clinical infusion tests. The model integrates physiological inputs including arterial blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rhythm, and resistance to cerebrospinal fluid outflow derived from clinical data. Built upon the classical Ursino framework, the model incorporates several modifications enabling realistic representation of physiological pulsations and infusion test conditions. The resulting system functions as a hybrid electrical-numerical simulation model representing a simplified digital electrical twin of intracranial hydrodynamics. The model was validated using data from 21 clinical infusion tests performed in patients with suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus. Simulated intracranial pressure recordings were compared with clinical measurements using regression and residual analysis. The simulations demonstrated strong agreement with measured data, with a mean correlation coefficient of r = 0.95 (95% CI 0.94 - 0.96), mean residual values within -1.71 to +1.68 mmHg, and a mean root mean square error (RMSE) of 2.07 mmHg. These results demonstrate that the proposed model accurately reproduces the dynamic behavior of intracranial pressure observed during clinical infusion tests. The framework provides a physiologically grounded computational tool for studying patient specific intracranial dynamics and may support improved interpretation of infusion test results in clinical practice.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 2%
12.9%
2
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.7%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.4%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
9.4%
5
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
5.0%
6
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.7%
8
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.7%
9
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.2%
10
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
11
Interface Focus
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
12
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
34 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
13
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
14
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
15
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
16
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.3%
17
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
18
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
19
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
21
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
23
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 57%
0.8%
24
Journal of Computational Neuroscience
23 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
25
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
26
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 39%
0.5%
27
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
28
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
29
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
30
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%