{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03792667509481669, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03034134007585335, 'mean_word_length': 4.259136212624584, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Response to Galvis et al.’s “Myopia rates in a genetically isolated population”

We wish to thank Dr. Galvis et al. for their thoughtful comments. We feel that this further analysis of our data enhances our paper and its impact. As suggested, Table A shows the percentage of our participants who are myopic (by the definition a spherical equivalent of −0.5 or more negative). In this table, we separated our children under 15 into only two groups because we had no participants who were younger than 5 years of age. Those very youngest female children 5–<10 years have a lower percentage of myopia than the males, specifically 12.2% myopia in the female children and 22% in the male children. In the next age group up, 10–15 years, the myopic females exceed the males (56.0% and 38.2%, respectively). The number of participants who are myopic in Table A from the younger child group (5–<10) compared with the older child group (10–15) increases by 43.8% among the females and by 16.2% among the males. It is during this age range where the participants are starting to take on gender roles, although still in school. At age 15, they are considered adults. In Table B, again, we separated under 15 into 5 to <10 and 10–15. As in Table A, the younger childhood group shows a higher percentage of myopia in the males than in the females and this switches in the older childhood group. For the percentage of participants who have a sphere of 0 or less, it is higher across the board. This is because there were a very large number of emmetropes and very few hyperopes in our population.