Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat›Keratoconus

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Keratoconus

Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-11-04 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 4 min read

A noninflammatory, usually bilateral protrusion and thinning of the cornea, the apex being displaced downward and nasally.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (801 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

A noninflammatory, usually bilateral protrusion and thinning of the cornea, the apex being displaced downward and nasally. It occurs most commonly in females at about puberty. Two closely related noninflammatory corneal ectasias are pellucid marginal degeneration and keratoglobus.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Pellucid Marginal Degeneration; Degeneration, Pellucid Marginal; Marginal Degeneration, Pellucid; Pellucid Marginal Degenerations; Pellucid Marginal Corneal Degeneration; Keratoglobus.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Corneal Diseases

Related concepts

  • Cornea

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 7,838 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Keratoconus” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 2,523 of them (32.2%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 2,854 records.

Reviews account for 661 records (8.4%) and meta-analyses for 90. Randomized controlled trials number 182 (2.3%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 1,427 records; 2000-2009: 1,034 records; 2010-2019: 2,854 records; 2020 onward: 2,523 records1,427through 19991,0342000-20092,8542010-20192,5232020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19991,427
2000-20091,034
2010-20192,854
2020 onward2,523
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 8.4 percent; Meta-analyses: 1.1 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 2.3 percentReviews8.4% (661)Meta-analyses1.1% (90)Randomized controlled trials2.3% (182)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 7,838 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews6618.4%
Meta-analyses901.1%
Randomized controlled trials1822.3%

Method: PubMed query "Keratoconus"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.

Reading the evidence in eye, ear, nose and throat

Eye, hearing, nose and throat studies rely on specialist tests (visual acuity, eye pressure, audiograms, scopes) and on patient-reported symptoms, which vary between people and with age. Some conditions improve without treatment, so comparison groups matter. Nothing on this page is advice about diagnosis or treatment; sudden loss of sight or hearing needs urgent care from a qualified clinician. Check how the outcome was tested, the age of the people studied and how long they were followed.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Squishy matters - Corneal mechanobiology in health and disease
Thomasy SM, Leonard BC, Greiner MA, Skeie JM, Raghunathan VK
2024Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
45cc by
PMID 38176611 · DOI · PMC11193890
Corneal biomechanics and diagnostics: a review
Komninou MA, Seiler TG, Enzmann V
2024Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
38cc by
PMID 38478103 · DOI · PMC10937779
Corneal biomechanics in normal and subclinical keratoconus eyes
Peyman A, Sepahvand F, Pourazizi M, Noorshargh P, Forouhari A
2023Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
15cc by
PMID 37968616 · DOI · PMC10647094
A deep learning approach for keratoconus detection using spatio-temporal features from corneal imaging
Syta A, Chorągiewicz T, Gęca J, Karpiński R, Wróbel-Dudzińska D, Podkowiński A, et al.
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
0cc by
PMID 42225912 · DOI · PMC13458084

Squishy matters - Corneal mechanobiology in health and disease [1]

Review article Thomasy SM, Leonard BC, Greiner MA, Skeie JM, Raghunathan VK · · 2024 · cited 45 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
The cornea, as a dynamic and responsive tissue, constantly interacts with mechanical forces in order to maintain its structural integrity, barrier function, transparency and refractive power.
Closing excerpt
By furthering our understanding corneal mechanobiology, we can contextualize discoveries regarding corneal diseases as well as innovative treatments for them.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (198 words)

The cornea, as a dynamic and responsive tissue, constantly interacts with mechanical forces in order to maintain its structural integrity, barrier function, transparency and refractive power. Cells within the cornea sense and respond to various mechanical forces that fundamentally regulate their morphology and fate in development, homeostasis and pathophysiology. Corneal cells also dynamically regulate their extracellular matrix (ECM) with ensuing cell-ECM crosstalk as the matrix serves as a dynamic signaling reservoir providing biophysical and biochemical cues to corneal cells. Here we provide an overview of mechanotransduction signaling pathways then delve into the recent advances in corneal mechanobiology, focusing on the interplay between mechanical forces and responses of the corneal epithelial, stromal, and endothelial cells. We also identify species-specific differences in corneal biomechanics and mechanotransduction to facilitate identification of optimal animal models to study corneal wound healing, disease, and novel therapeutic interventions. Finally, we identify key knowledge gaps and therapeutic opportunities in corneal mechanobiology that are pressing for the research community to address especially pertinent within the domains of limbal stem cell deficiency, keratoconus and Fuchs' endothelial corneal dystrophy. By furthering our understanding corneal mechanobiology, we can contextualize discoveries regarding corneal diseases as well as innovative treatments for them.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 38176611 · DOI · PMC11193890

Corneal biomechanics and diagnostics: a review [2]

Review article Komninou MA, Seiler TG, Enzmann V · · 2024 · cited 38 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
PurposeCorneal biomechanics is an emerging field and the interest into physical and biological interrelations in the anterior part of the eye has significantly increased during the past years.
Closing excerpt
Therefore, a better understanding of corneal biomechanics will lead to earlier diagnosis of ectatic disorders, improve current refractive surgeries and allow for a better postoperative treatment.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (208 words)

PurposeCorneal biomechanics is an emerging field and the interest into physical and biological interrelations in the anterior part of the eye has significantly increased during the past years. There are many factors that determine corneal biomechanics such as hormonal fluctuations, hydration and environmental factors. Other factors that can affect the corneas are the age, the intraocular pressure and the central corneal thickness. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the factors affecting corneal biomechanics and the recent advancements in non-destructive, in vivo measurement techniques for early detection and improved management of corneal diseases.MethodsUntil recently, corneal biomechanics could not be directly assessed in humans and were instead inferred from geometrical cornea analysis and ex vivo biomechanical testing. The current research has made strides in studying and creating non-destructive and contactless techniques to measure the biomechanical properties of the cornea in vivo.ResultsResearch has indicated that altered corneal biomechanics contribute to diseases such as keratoconus and glaucoma. The identification of pathological corneas through the new measurement techniques is imperative for preventing postoperative complications.ConclusionsIdentification of pathological corneas is crucial for the prevention of postoperative complications. Therefore, a better understanding of corneal biomechanics will lead to earlier diagnosis of ectatic disorders, improve current refractive surgeries and allow for a better postoperative treatment.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 38478103 · DOI · PMC10937779

Corneal biomechanics in normal and subclinical keratoconus eyes [3]

Research article Peyman A, Sepahvand F, Pourazizi M, Noorshargh P, Forouhari A · · 2023 · cited 15 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundThe diagnosis of keratoconus, as the most prevalent corneal ectatic disorder, at the subclinical stage gained great attention due to the increased acceptance of refractive surgeries.
Closing excerpt
ConclusionsTBI, CBI, and ARTh parameters could be valuable in distinguishing SKC eyes from normal ones.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (216 words)

BackgroundThe diagnosis of keratoconus, as the most prevalent corneal ectatic disorder, at the subclinical stage gained great attention due to the increased acceptance of refractive surgeries. This study aimed to assess the pattern of the corneal biomechanical properties derived from Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (Corvis ST) and evaluate the diagnostic value of these parameters in distinguishing subclinical keratoconus (SKC) from normal eyes.MethodsThis prospective study was conducted on 73 SKC and 69 normal eyes. Subclinical keratoconus eyes were defined as corneas with no clinical evidence of keratoconus and suspicious topographic and tomographic features. Following a complete ophthalmic examination, topographic and tomographic corneal assessment via Pentacam HR, and corneal biomechanical evaluation utilizing Corvis ST were done.ResultsSubclinical keratoconus eyes presented significantly higher Deformation Amplitude (DA) ratio, Tomographic Biomechanical Index (TBI), and Corvis Biomechanical Index (CBI) rates than the control group. Conversely, Ambrósio Relational Thickness to the Horizontal profile (ARTh), and Stiffness Parameter at the first Applanation (SPA1) showed significantly lower rates in SKC eyes. In diagnosing SKC from normal eyes, TBI (AUC: 0.858, Cut-off value: > 0.33, Youden index: 0.55), ARTh (AUC: 0.813, Cut-off value: ≤ 488.1, Youden index: 0.58), and CBI (AUC: 0.804, Cut-off value: > 0.47, Youden index: 0.49) appeared as good indicators.ConclusionsTBI, CBI, and ARTh parameters could be valuable in distinguishing SKC eyes from normal ones.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 37968616 · DOI · PMC10647094

A deep learning approach for keratoconus detection using spatio-temporal features from corneal imaging [4]

Research article Syta A, Chorągiewicz T, Gęca J, Karpiński R, Wróbel-Dudzińska D, Podkowiński A, et al. · · 2026

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Keratoconus is a progressive corneal disease that requires early and accurate detection to prevent severe visual impairment.
Closing excerpt
Further validation on external datasets is recommended prior to clinical deployment.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (179 words)

Keratoconus is a progressive corneal disease that requires early and accurate detection to prevent severe visual impairment. This study presents a deep learning-based classification model for distinguishing between healthy and keratoconic eyes using dynamic corneal imaging data from the CORVIS system. A hybrid CNN-RNN architecture was developed, combining a fine-tuned InceptionV3 network for spatial feature extraction with a recurrent LSTM module to capture temporal patterns across image sequences. To ensure robust evaluation, a 10-fold stratified cross-validation strategy was employed, with data splits performed at the patient level to avoid data leakage. The model achieved an average accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score of approximately 0.90 across folds, demonstrating strong generalization performance. Boxplot visualizations of metric distributions further confirmed model stability and revealed minimal performance variance. Class-wise analysis showed high effectiveness in detecting both healthy and keratoconic cases, although slightly greater variability was observed in the classification of healthy eyes. These results indicate that the proposed method is a promising tool for keratoconus screening and may complement existing diagnostic workflows. Further validation on external datasets is recommended prior to clinical deployment.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42225912 · DOI · PMC13458084

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Keratoconus [5]
    Rabinowitz YS · Surv Ophthalmol · 1998 · cited 2,212 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases [6]
    Gomes JA, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, Belin MW, Ambrósio R, Guell JL, et al. · Cornea · 2015 · cited 793 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Keratoconus: An updated review [7]
    Santodomingo-Rubido J, Carracedo G, Suzaki A, Villa-Collar C, Vincent SJ, Wolffsohn JS · Cont Lens Anterior Eye · 2022 · cited 477 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article The Prevalence and Risk Factors for Keratoconus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [8]
    Hashemi H, Heydarian S, Hooshmand E, Saatchi M, Yekta A, Aghamirsalim M, et al. · Cornea · 2020 · cited 392 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article A review of keratoconus: Diagnosis, pathophysiology, and genetics [9]
    Mas Tur V, MacGregor C, Jayaswal R, O'Brart D, Maycock N · Surv Ophthalmol · 2017 · cited 312 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article The genetic and environmental factors for keratoconus [10]
    Gordon-Shaag A, Millodot M, Shneor E, Liu Y · Biomed Res Int · 2015 · cited 299 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Thomasy SM, Leonard BC, Greiner MA, Skeie JM, Raghunathan VK. Squishy matters - Corneal mechanobiology in health and disease. . 2024. PMID 38176611 · DOI · PMC11193890
  2. Komninou MA, Seiler TG, Enzmann V. Corneal biomechanics and diagnostics: a review. . 2024. PMID 38478103 · DOI · PMC10937779
  3. Peyman A, Sepahvand F, Pourazizi M, Noorshargh P, Forouhari A. Corneal biomechanics in normal and subclinical keratoconus eyes. . 2023. PMID 37968616 · DOI · PMC10647094
  4. Syta A, Chorągiewicz T, Gęca J, Karpiński R, Wróbel-Dudzińska D, Podkowiński A, et al.. A deep learning approach for keratoconus detection using spatio-temporal features from corneal imaging. . 2026. PMID 42225912 · DOI · PMC13458084
  5. Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol. 1998. PMID 9493273 · DOI
  6. Gomes JA, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, Belin MW, Ambrósio R, Guell JL, et al.. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea. 2015. PMID 25738235 · DOI
  7. Santodomingo-Rubido J, Carracedo G, Suzaki A, Villa-Collar C, Vincent SJ, Wolffsohn JS. Keratoconus: An updated review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2022. PMID 34991971 · DOI
  8. Hashemi H, Heydarian S, Hooshmand E, Saatchi M, Yekta A, Aghamirsalim M, et al.. The Prevalence and Risk Factors for Keratoconus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cornea. 2020. PMID 31498247 · DOI
  9. Mas Tur V, MacGregor C, Jayaswal R, O'Brart D, Maycock N. A review of keratoconus: Diagnosis, pathophysiology, and genetics. Surv Ophthalmol. 2017. PMID 28688894 · DOI
  10. Gordon-Shaag A, Millodot M, Shneor E, Liu Y. The genetic and environmental factors for keratoconus. Biomed Res Int. 2015. PMID 26075261 · DOI · PMC4449900

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-11-04.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Geographic AtrophyEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • AstigmatismEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Corneal EdemaEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Macular DegenerationEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • PterygiumEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Intervertebral Disc DegenerationBones, Joints, Muscles and Skin

All 51 articles in Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat →

At a glance

7,838
PubMed records on this heading
32%
published since 2020
661
review articles
182
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-11-04; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Geographic AtrophyEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • AstigmatismEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Corneal EdemaEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • Macular DegenerationEye, Ear, Nose and Throat
  • PterygiumEye, Ear, Nose and Throat

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support