{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03486238532110092, 'fraction_numerical': 0.035321100917431195, 'mean_word_length': 5.058333333333334, '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}}
Validity and repeatability of contour-based visotec distance stereoacuity test.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The clinical assessment of distance stereoacuity is important in some ocular conditions. Given the different neurophysiological mechanism for crossed and uncrossed stereoacuities, evaluation of both may provide additional insight into binocular vision disorders.


BACKGROUND
Clinical devices measuring distance crossed and uncrossed stereopsis are not readily available. Visotec Distance Stereo Test (VDST) is a contour-based device designed to measure both forms of distance stereoacuity. This study assesses the validity and test-retest reliability of the device in comparison to the random dot-based Randot Distance Stereo Test (RDST).


METHOD
VDST and RDST were administered to a total of 107 children, that included 51 'normal' and 56 'abnormal' (37 intermittent exotropia and 19 amblyopia) between the ages of 5 and 15 years. Two examiners retested stereoacuities in a sub-set of 62 randomly selected subjects. Stereoacuity was transformed to log scale. 95% limits of agreement were calculated for test-retest reliability. The Bland-Altman plot was used to demonstrate the agreement between the tests and the examiners.


RESULTS
The mean ± SD crossed distance stereoacuities using VDST in normal, intermittent exotropia and amblyopic children were 93.1 ± 43.8, 161.9 ± 89.8 and 236.3 ± 122.4 arcseconds, respectively. For uncrossed stereoacuity, these were 104.7 ± 54.0, 187.6 ± 89.6 and 265.5 ± 144.0 arcseconds, respectively. Crossed stereoacuity was significantly better than uncrossed stereoacuity. 95% limits of test-retest agreement for crossed and uncrossed stereoacuities using the VDST were 0.27 and 0.30, respectively. An exact test-retest match using VDST was 84% in normals and 77% in abnormals for crossed and 83% in normal and 74% in abnormal for uncrossed stereoacuities.


CONCLUSION
VDST is a reliable, valid and easy-to-administer distance crossed and uncrossed stereoacuity measuring device. Further studies are required to establish the clinical importance of assessing these two forms stereoacuities in relation to various binocular vision disorders.