Target leakage, not model class, explains reported accuracy in survey-based cardiovascular screening: a leakage-tiered audit of glass-box and tabular foundation models — Paper

Abstract

Cardiovascular screening models trained on national health surveys routinely report areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) near 0.89. We asked whether that accuracy reflects learning or target leakage, whether tabular foundation models change the answer, and whether the properties deployment requires survive joint examination. We benchmarked ten classifiers spanning linear, tree-ensemble, neural, glass-box, and tabular foundation classes for prevalent myocardial infarction in 442,067 respondents of the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System across five feature tiers of decreasing leakage risk. Each was audited for discrimination, calibration, fairness at an explicit screening threshold, conformal coverage, explanation faithfulness, and inference cost, then applied -- models and thresholds frozen -- to 430,755 respondents of 2023. Removing two post-diagnostic features cost every model 0.049-0.051 AUROC, collapsing the field into a 0.0045-wide band. The glass-box explainable boosting machine was non-inferior to every alternative within a pre-specified 0.005 margin while scoring the cohort roughly 104 times faster than the strongest foundation model. One threshold detected 75.4% of women's infarctions against 89.0% of men's; editing the model's shape functions reduced the gap to 0.010. Marginal conformal prediction gave 0.86 coverage to men and 0.82 to adults over 60; Mondrian calibration repaired every stratum. Frozen models transported within 0.002 AUROC. Reported headroom in this literature is a property of the feature set, not the learner. Transparency cost nothing measurable and made fairness repair and uncertainty conditioning directly auditable. Evaluation practice, not model capacity, is the binding constraint.

Authors 5

Raad Bin Tareaf, Murad Al-Rajab, Samia Loucif, Samer Ellaham, Cedric Schmitz

Specification

Official page: arxiv.org/abs/2609.11838
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
Arxiv announce type: new
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
arXiv id: 2609.11838
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
Categories: cs.CL
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
PDF: arxiv.org/pdf/2609.11838
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
Primary category: cs.CL
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
Published: 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh

Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →

Provenance

Attributed facts

9

Source tiers

T19

Freshest observation

6 h ago

Conflicts

None

No models linked to this paper yet.

Authors: Raad Bin Tareaf, Murad Al-Rajab, Samia Loucif

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history · Abstract

1 claims · 1 propertiesShow all properties

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
Cardiovascular screening models trained on national health surveys routinely report areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) near 0.89. We asked whether that accuracy reflects learning or target leakage, whether tabular foundation models change the answer, and whether the properties deployment requires survive joint examination. We benchmarked ten classifiers spanning linear, tree-ensemble, neural, glass-box, and tabular foundation classes for prevalent myocardial infarction in 442,067 respondents of the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System across five feature tiers of decreasing leakage risk. Each was audited for discrimination, calibration, fairness at an explicit screening threshold, conformal coverage, explanation faithfulness, and inference cost, then applied -- models and thresholds frozen -- to 430,755 respondents of 2023. Removing two post-diagnostic features cost every model 0.049-0.051 AUROC, collapsing the field into a 0.0045-wide band. The glass-box explainable boosting machine was non-inferior to every alternative within a pre-specified 0.005 margin while scoring the cohort roughly 104 times faster than the strongest foundation model. One threshold detected 75.4% of women's infarctions against 89.0% of men's; editing the model's shape functions reduced the gap to 0.010. Marginal conformal prediction gave 0.86 coverage to men and 0.82 to adults over 60; Mondrian calibration repaired every stratum. Frozen models transported within 0.002 AUROC. Reported headroom in this literature is a property of the feature set, not the learner. Transparency cost nothing measurable and made fairness repair and uncertainty conditioning directly auditable. Evaluation practice, not model capacity, is the binding constraint.	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →

11 Sept 2026
New paperPaperTarget leakage, not model class, explains reported accuracy in survey-based cardiovascular screening: a leakage-tiered audit of glass-box and tabular foundation models
New paper: Target leakage, not model class, explains reported accuracy in survey-based cardiovascular screening: a leakage-tiered audit of glass-box and tabular foundation models
arxiv
rss.arxiv.org

Full timeline →

Source documents
Source	Document	Type	Tier	Last observed	Snapshots
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)	rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.CL	feed	T1· Official	4 h ago	1

Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.