The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Age-related differences in the normal human cornea: a laser scanning in vivo confocal microscopy study
Open accessAbstract
AIMS: To quantify and establish baseline normative data for age-related differences in cellular and innervation density in the normal, healthy, human cornea using laser scanning in vivo confocal microscopy. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 85 normal subjects assessed via corneal topography and laser scanning in vivo confocal microscopy. RESULTS: Mean age was 38+/-16 years (range 18-87 years) and 60% of subjects were female. Anterior keratocyte density declined by 0.9% per year (r = -0.423, p<0.001), posterior keratocyte density declined by 0.3% per year (r = -0.250, p = 0.021) and endothelial cell density declined by 0.5% per year (r = -0.615, p<0.001). Sub-basal nerve fibre density declined by 0.9% per year (r = -0.423, p<0.001). No association was observed between age and basal epithelial cell density, or between age and central corneal thickness, corneal astigmatism or horizontal corneal diameter (p>0.05). No association was observed between subject gender and corneal cell or innervation density. CONCLUSIONS: Using laser scanning in vivo confocal microscopy this study highlights a significant, and relatively linear, reduction in keratocyte and endothelial cell density with increasing subject age. Interestingly, corneal sub-basal nerve fibre density also significantly decreases with increasing age. In vivo laser scanning confocal microscopy provides a safe, non-invasive method for the establishment of normative data and assessment of alterations in human corneal microstructure following surgery or disease processes.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Ocular surface wetness is regulated by TRPM8-dependent cold thermoreceptors of the cornea
Parra, A., Madrid, R., Echevarria, D., del Olmo, S., Morenilla-Palao, C., Acosta, M. C., Gallar, J., Dhaka, A., Viana, F., & Belmonte, C. (2010) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.2264 · Cited by 324
Balasubramanian, S. A., Pye, D. C., & Willcox, M. D. (2013) · Clinical and Experimental Optometry · doi:10.1111/cxo.12038 · Cited by 259
Tavakoli, M., Ferdousi, M., Petropoulos, I. N., Morris, J., Pritchard, N., Zhivov, A., Ziegler, D., Pacaud, D., Romanchuk, K., Perkins, B. A., et al. (2015) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc14-2311 · Cited by 222
Metadata
- Authors
- Niederer, R. L., Perumal, D., Sherwin, T., & McGhee, C. N. J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2007-03-27
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1165-1169
- ISSN
- 0007-1161 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2154145465
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Age-related differences in the normal human cornea: a laser scanning in vivo confocal microscopy study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjo.2006.112656
- The paper
- Niederer, R. L., Perumal, D., Sherwin, T., & McGhee, C. N. J. (2007). Age-related differences in the normal human cornea: a laser scanning in vivo confocal microscopy study. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2006.112656
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.