{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029435813573180702, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022894521668029435, 'mean_word_length': 5.08955223880597, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?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}}
Could a cycloplegic agent be replaced by a fogging or a corrective lens in the biometric measurement of the crystalline lens?

This study investigated whether a fogging or a corrective lens could be used to replace a cycloplegic agent in the ultrasonic measurement of crystalline lens thickness in myopia. A group of 28 Hong Kong Chinese adults with myopia was recruited. The crystalline lens thickness of the examined eye was measured by A‐scan ultrasonography while the fixating eye was in one of three conditions: fog (+2.00 D fogging lens), full corrective lens, or cycloplegia (50 minutes after instillation of 1% cyclopentolate HCl). We found that the mean lens thickness was significantly different between the three conditions in our myopic subjects. The mean crystalline lens thickness under fogging and corrective lens conditions was significantly greater than the cycloplegic condition by 0.09 mm and 0.11 mm, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement compared to cycloplegia (fogging: −0.32 to +0.14; corrective: −0.35 to +0.13) showed marked intersubject variability, indicating that there is a risk of overestimating the lens thickness when substituting cycloplegia with either a fogging or a corrective lens.