Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 451

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Corneal-thickness spatial profile and corneal-volume distribution: Tomographic indices to detect keratoconus

Ambrósio, Renato, Alonso, Ruiz Simonato, Luz, Allan, Coca Velarde, Luis Guillermo·2006·Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the corneal-thickness spatial profile and corneal-volume distribution differentiate keratoconic corneas from normal corneas using new tomography parameters. SETTING: Subspecialty cornea and refractive practice, Fluminense Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. METHODS: Forty-six eyes diagnosed with mild to moderate keratoconus and 364 normal eyes were studied by the Pentacam Comprehensive Eye Scanner. Corneal thickness at the thinnest point and the averages of the points on 22 imaginary circles centered on the thinnest point with increased diameters at 0.4 mm steps were calculated to create a corneal-thickness spatial profile. Corneal volume was calculated within diameters from 1.0 to 7.0 mm with 0.5 mm steps centered on the thinnest point to create the corneal-volume distribution. The percentage increase in thickness and the percentage increase in volume were calculated for each position of the corneal-thickness spatial profile and corneal-volume distribution from their first value. Statistical analysis was done using the Wilcoxon 2-independent-sample test to compare mean levels using S-Plus-4.0 software (MathSoft) and a normal linear model under a Bayesian frame for estimating the mean variation in thickness and volume using the BUGS 0.6 package. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed between the groups (P<.05) in all positions of corneal-thickness spatial profile and corneal-volume distribution and in the percentage increase in thickness and percentage increase in volume between 3.5 mm and 7.0 mm diameters. CONCLUSIONS: Corneal-thickness spatial profile, corneal-volume distribution, percentage increase in thickness, and percentage increase in volume were different between keratoconic corneas and normal corneas and could serve as indices to diagnose keratoconus and screen refractive candidates. Further studies are necessary to evaluate whether these tomographic indices are more sensitive and specific than the classic Placido-based topography.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.06.025

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 451

Metadata

Authors
Ambrósio, R., Alonso, R. S., Luz, A., & Coca Velarde, L. G.
Venue
Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
Published
2006-11
Volume
32
Issue
11
Pages
1851-1859
ISSN
  • 0146-2776 (ISSN-L)
  • 0886-3350
OpenAlex
W2170466279
Cited by
451
References
17
FWCI
8.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Corneal-thickness spatial profile and corneal-volume distribution: Tomographic indices to detect keratoconus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.06.025
The paper
Ambrósio, R., Alonso, R. S., Luz, A., & Coca Velarde, L. G. (2006). Corneal-thickness spatial profile and corneal-volume distribution: Tomographic indices to detect keratoconus. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.06.025

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.