title: Body mass index, chronological age and hormonal status are better predictors of biological skin age than arm skin autofluorescence in healthy women who have never smoked.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  As life expectancy is increasing and healthy ageing becomes more and more important, skin ageing is a growing topic of interest from both a medical and a commercial point of view. The urgency to unravel the causes of skin ageing is rising. However, there is a lack of objective, simple, noninvasive methods to assess biological skin age - a term introduced to describe how old someone looks, covering both the appearance and function of the skin. A rapid, noninvasive assessment of biological skin age would greatly facilitate the execution of the studies required to find the causes of skin ageing.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To find an objective, easy-to-apply method to assess biological skin age.
  
  
  METHODS
  Skin age score (SAS) was compared with skin autofluorescence, a measure of advanced glycation end products in the skin, and several subject characteristics in 32 healthy, white women with little sun-exposed skin and no history of smoking.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A moderate, positive correlation (R(2) = 0·32, P = 0·001) between SAS and skin autofluorescence-based biological skin age was found. However, the variation in biological skin age according to SAS could be explained better by body mass index, chronological age and hormonal status (R(2) = 0·86, P < 0·001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In the current setting skin autofluorescence did not contribute better to the prediction of biological skin age than chronological age. Biological skin age was best predicted by body mass index, chronological age and hormonal status, and this approach provides a considerable simplification of the application of biological skin age.
authors.affiliation: Department of Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
authors.forename: A C
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: Randag
authors.affiliation: Department of Endocrinology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Graaff
authors.affiliation: Department of Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
authors.forename: M M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Dreise
authors.affiliation: IUF - Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Düsseldorf, Germany.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Vierkötter
authors.affiliation: Department of Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
authors.forename: P M N
authors.initials: PM
authors.lastname: Werker
authors.affiliation: Department of Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
authors.forename: M W
authors.initials: MW
authors.lastname: Stenekes
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000375:Aging / Q000502:physiology*; D015992:Body Mass Index; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D005542:Forearm; D064368:Healthy Volunteers; D006728:Hormones / Q000378:metabolism*; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D061848:Optical Imaging; D017698:Postmenopause / Q000502:physiology; D017697:Premenopause / Q000502:physiology; D012044:Regression Analysis; D015595:Skin Aging / Q000502:physiology*; D012907:Smoking / Q000503:physiopathology; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
chemical_list: D006728:Hormones