The Cost of Binarizing Survival Outcomes in Clinical Prognostic Modeling

We revisit Cox's proportional hazards model to improve variable selection in survival analysis. A square-root transformation of the partial likelihood renders the selection of the regularization parameter pivotal, free of the unknown baseline hazard and censoring mechanism. The resulting criterion borrows from information criteria such as BIC and from penalized regression methods such as the lasso, taking the best of both. On simulated and real data, our method substantially improves upon state-of-the-art approaches used daily in support recovery.

Objective: Survival analysis is central to medical prediction, yet large language models (LLMs) are rarely used as end-to-end survival models because censoring prevents straightforward supervised fine-tuning. Here we present LLMSurvival, a framework that enables censoring-aware survival analysis with unmodified LLMs operating directly on tabular clinical data. Materials and Methods: LLMSurvival reformulates time-to-event prediction as pairwise ranking among comparable subjects, and derives test-time risk by aggregating comparisons against anchor individuals from the training cohort. Results: Across two clinical tasks (ICU mortality prediction in MIMIC-IV and fragility fracture prediction in a NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine cohort), LLMSurvival improves overall concordance over Cox proportional hazards modeling by 3.1% for ICU mortality and 0.5% for fracture risk, 2.1% on average for ICU mortality and 2.8% for fracture risk over three established deep learning survival models. Discussion: The results show that survival modeling with censoring can be made compatible with LLM fine-tuning through comparison-based reformulation. The framework demonstrates high portability and superior performance over expert curated scores like SAPS-II and FRAX scores across diverse clinical context. Furthermore, the framework supports local deployment, as compact, publicly available base models provide sufficient performance. Conclusion: The LLMSurvival framework serves as a proof of concept for an integrated, censoring-conscious approach to survival analysis via LLMs.

Predicting time-to-event outcomes such as mortality is a fundamental task in clinical decision-making, commonly addressed through survival analysis. While classical statistical and deep learning approaches have been widely studied, they typically require task-specific training and sufficient labeled data. Recent advances in tabular foundation models offer a new paradigm by learning general-purpose representations for structured data. However, their applicability to censored time-to-event prediction in clinical settings remains underexplored, as typical applications are restricted to discrete classification rather than survival analysis tasks. In this work, we propose a lightweight adaptation approach for applying tabular foundation models to clinical survival analysis by directly training a survival-aware head on top of the pretrained representations. We study representative architectures, including TabPFN, TabDPT, and TabICL, and adapt them using a multi-task logistic regression (MTLR) head to model right-censored time-to-event outcomes. We evaluate this approach on a diverse set of public survival benchmarks and two large-scale ICU cohorts, MIMIC-IV and eICU. Our results show that this transfer learning approach achieves competitive or superior performance compared to strong baselines. On MIMIC-IV, TabDPT-FT-MTLR reaches a C-index of 0.856, corresponding to a relative improvement of +1.4% over the best non-FM baseline (DeepSurv, 0.844) and +6.7% over the best zero-shot model (0.802). On eICU, TabICL-FT-MTLR achieves 0.797, yielding gains of +1.7% (DeepSurv, 0.784) and +6.4% (0.749), respectively. These findings highlight the importance of combining pretrained tabular representations with survival-aware objectives and suggest that tabular foundation models provide a practical and effective alternative for clinical survival prediction.