Feasibility of Using Optical Sensing to Measure Bore Depth in Surgical Bone Drilling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The depth gauge is used in many osteosynthesis surgeries to measure drilled bore depth for screw selection, and has significant limitations. Its use has been shown to contribute to placement of incorrectly sized screws, which can lead to adverse outcomes in patients. We have developed an automatic depth gauge prototype which mounts on an existing surgical drill and makes use of an optical sensor. This builds off previous work in our lab which showed that drilled bore depth could be computed from continuous measurement of drill displacement relative to the bone. We tested our device in animal models and compared it with digital calipers as a gold standard. In a simple porcine model the prototype showed potentially superior performance (mean error 2.05mm, SD 0.67mm) compared with the conventional depth gauge (mean error 0.83 mm, SD 1.55 mm). However, this could not be reproduced in a more realistic porcine model.An automated depth gauge mounted on a conventional surgical drill shows potential as a replacement for the existing depth gauge, but the design needs to be refined for use in an operating room setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".