%0 Journal Article %A Jeremy Graber %A Andrew Kittelson %A Elizabeth Juarez-Colunga %A Xin Jin %A Michael Bade %A Jennifer Stevens-Lapsley %T Comparing “people-like-me” and linear mixed model predictions of functional recovery following knee arthroplasty %D 2022 %R 10.1101/2022.03.09.22271922 %J medRxiv %P 2022.03.09.22271922 %X Objective Prediction models can be useful tools for monitoring patient status and personalizing treatment in health care. The goal of this study was to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of two different approaches for predicting functional recovery after knee arthroplasty: a neighbors-based “people-like-me” (PLM) approach and a linear mixed model (LMM) approach.Materials and Methods We used two distinct datasets to train and then test PLM and LMM prediction approaches for functional recovery following knee arthroplasty. We used Timed Up and Go (TUG)—a commonly used test of mobility—to operationalize physical function. Both approaches used patient characteristics and baseline postoperative TUG values to predict TUG recovery from days 1-425 following surgery. We compared the accuracy and precision of PLM and LMM predictions in the testing dataset.Results A total of 317 patient records with 1379 TUG observations were used to train PLM and LMM approaches, and 456 patient records with 1244 TUG observations were used to test the predictions. The approaches performed similarly in terms of mean squared error and bias, but the PLM approach provided more accurate and precise estimates of prediction uncertainty.Discussion and Conclusion Overall, the PLM approach more accurately and precisely predicted TUG recovery following knee arthroplasty. These results suggest PLM predictions may be more clinically useful for monitoring recovery and personalizing care following knee arthroplasty. However, clinicians and organizations seeking to use predictions in practice should consider additional factors (e.g., resource requirements) when selecting a prediction approach.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS025692) and the Advanced Geriatrics Research Fellowship through the VA Eastern Colorado Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC). The contents do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe datasets used for this analysis may be available upon reasonable request. Please contact the senior author, Dr. Jennifer Stevens-Lapsley, for details. %U https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/06/22/2022.03.09.22271922.full.pdf