Your topics. New publications.

A compact browser notification when there’s something new. At most once a day — no account needed.

What interests you?

Optional and switchable off here at any time. We save your selected topics and device subscription; no email address is required. Privacy

Search the harborEN/DEAccount
Biological age & clocks
Research brief

Corneal nerve fiber measures and PhenoAge in 84 healthy adults

In 84 clinically healthy adults aged 22–89, older chronological age and higher PhenoAge were associated with lower main corneal nerve fiber measures, most consistently main-fiber density. The abstract calls for longitudinal validation. [1]

Automatic summary · not editorially reviewed

The key findings

  1. Eighty-four clinically healthy volunteers aged 22–89 years underwent corneal confocal microscopy, and PhenoAge was calculated with the Levine algorithm. [1]

  2. Older chronological age and higher PhenoAge were associated with lower main corneal nerve fiber measures, most consistently main-fiber density. [1]

  3. The authors suggest the PhenoAge–main-fiber density association may indicate a systemic biological aging component and state that longitudinal validation is warranted. [1]

The source at a glance

Study type / format
Cross-sectional study reported in an abstract.
Population / context
84 clinically healthy adults aged 22–89 years.
Summary based on
Study abstract
Original publication
July 6, 2026

PhenoAge and corneal imaging in healthy adults

The study asked whether corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), a noninvasive method for imaging subbasal corneal nerve fibers, relates to biological age beyond chronological age. PhenoAge, described as a validated clinical measure of biological aging linked to morbidity and mortality risk, was calculated with the Levine algorithm. Eighty-four clinically healthy volunteers aged 22–89 years underwent CCM. Associations were tested with Spearman correlations, both eye-specific and using each participant's mean of both eyes.

Supporting source [1]

Lower main-fiber density with older age and PhenoAge

Mean chronological age was 50.8 ± 15.5 years and mean PhenoAge 47.1 ± 16.3 years. No systematic differences between the two eyes were detected (all p > 0.05). Older age and higher PhenoAge were associated with lower main corneal nerve fiber measures, most consistently main-fiber density. In the participant-level sensitivity analysis, both chronological age and PhenoAge were inversely associated with main-fiber length and density (all p ≤ 0.035). In mixed-effects models, main-fiber density was associated with chronological age (β = -0.020/year, p = 0.032) and PhenoAge (β = -0.019/year, p = 0.037).

Supporting source [1]

Aging-related pattern, not proof of cause

The authors describe aging-related patterns of CCM-derived corneal nerve morphology in clinically healthy adults. They suggest the association between PhenoAge and main-fiber density may point to a systemic biological aging component. These are associations in a cross-sectional sample of 84 volunteers; the abstract does not report follow-up. The authors state that longitudinal validation is warranted.

Supporting source [1]

How to interpret this

Abstract only; the full text was not reviewed. The design is cross-sectional with 84 volunteers, and the abstract reports no follow-up. Associations are not causal, and the abstract does not establish that PhenoAge predicts outcomes.

Based on the study abstract; the full paper, tables and supplementary data were not reviewed.

Source & supporting passages

[1]
Corneal Nerve Fiber Morphology and Biological Age in Healthy Adults.

Khalatyan AS, Yusef Y, Surnina ZV, Sarkisova KG, Chizhonkova EA, Avetisov KS, Altemirova KK, Machekhina LV, Melnitskaya AA, Strazhesko ID. · europepmc.org · July 6, 2026

Read the quoted passagesIn the language of the original source
  1. Finding 1 ↑

    Eighty-four healthy volunteers (22-89 years) underwent CCM
  2. Finding 2 ↑

    most consistently for main-fiber density
  3. Finding 3 ↑

    warrants longitudinal validation

AI-assisted summary with linked source passages. No independent editorial or clinical review.

Our editorial method

Discussion

Community discussions

0 topics

Member contributions. Share sources, disclose commercial interests, and avoid personal medical or dosing advice.

Loading…