# A Comparative Framework for Evaluating Foundation Models on Tabular Data: A Case Study in Healthcare

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22154 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.22154/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 21 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.00020/) (2021)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Revisiting Deep Learning Models for Tabular Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11959/) (2021)
- [TabPFN: A Transformer That Solves Small Tabular Classification Problems in a Second](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.01848/) (2022)
- [TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.07442/) (2019)
- [TabTransformer: Tabular Data Modeling Using Contextual Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.06678/) (2020)
- [SAINT: Improved Neural Networks for Tabular Data via Row Attention and Contrastive Pre-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.01342/) (2021)
- [TabICL: A Tabular Foundation Model for In-Context Learning on Large Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05564/) (2025)
- [Neural Oblivious Decision Ensembles for Deep Learning on Tabular Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06312/) (2019)
- [Large Language Models(LLMs) on Tabular Data: Prediction, Generation, and Understanding -- A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17944/) (2024)
- [TransTab: Learning Transferable Tabular Transformers Across Tables](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.09328/) (2022)
- [TabDPT: Scaling Tabular Foundation Models on Real Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18164/) (2024)
- [Why Tabular Foundation Models Should Be a Research Priority](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01147/) (2024)
- [Foundation Model for Advancing Healthcare: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03264/) (2024)
- [CARTE: Pretraining and Transfer for Tabular Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16785/) (2024)
- [Language Modeling on Tabular Data: A Survey of Foundations, Techniques and Evolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10548/) (2024)
- [TabRet: Pre-training Transformer-based Tabular Models for Unseen Columns](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15747/) (2023)
- [Improvement of a Prediction Model for Heart Failure Survival through Explainable Artificial Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.10717/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Tabular data is the most common format in clinical practice, encompassing laboratory results, medication records, diagnostic codes, and patient demographics. As foundation models for tabular data have grown in number and variety, a practical question has become harder to answer: which model should a clinician or data scientist actually choose for a given task, and why? Existing surveys catalogue what these models can do, but they stop short of providing a structured way to compare them against the specific demands of a real application. We introduce system, a comparative evaluation framework that scores and ranks tabular foundation models (TFMs) across six clinically meaningful dimensions: how well a model generalizes to new datasets, how effectively it protects patient privacy, how much data it needs to perform well, how it scales with growing datasets and feature spaces, how interpretable its predictions are to clinicians, and how fairly it performs across patient subgroups. Each dimension is broken down into measurable sub-components, and groups of sub-components can optionally be combined into supplementary compound scores, called super-metrics, that provide a diagnostic view of how a model performs across several dimensions simultaneously. To show how the framework works in practice, we apply it to two healthcare use cases, screening for iron deficiency and predicting heart failure, demonstrating how the same set of metrics leads to different model rankings depending on what matters most in each clinical context. We also provide a taxonomy of 45 TFMs organized by their underlying architecture, which serves as a reference for researchers and practitioners looking to navigate this rapidly expanding field.