Nine Names LLC

Biomedical claims, audited before they move.

Source map. Pipeline checks. Donor support. Failure modes. Then a narrow verdict.

Company
Nine Names LLC
Director
Jixiang Leng
Director correspondence
leng.jixiang@ninenames.com

Audit map

Move toward what you need.

Nine Names audits biological claims through source, method, verdict, handoff, and contact paths. The map brings one path forward at a time; nothing clicks unless you choose it.

Move toward what you want to check. I will bring one path forward and keep the rest quiet.

  1. Read Same paths, no motion.
  2. Notice Nearby choices get clearer.
  3. Lean Cursor movement suggests one next path.
Company4 Source21 Methods53 Verdict14 Workflow3 Handoff14 Channel14
Path Ready Now: Source Ledger Likely: Source map Move gently. I will keep one likely path in view.

The map only changes the view. It never auto-clicks, auto-submits, tracks you, or changes the public record.

What we do

The audit, in three gates.

Every public claim needs a source map, break tests, and a visible verdict line.

Source Ledger

Map every public statement to a traceable source, status label, and missing-artifact note.

Break Tests

Challenge QC filters, normalization defaults, and donor-level support before a claim moves.

Verdict Line

Survives, caveat, and held labels come only after the audit trail is written.

Recent audit spotlight: ALS

Current example: a claim narrowed by donor and pipeline checks.

The useful proof is not the disease story. It is the method: source state, defaults, donor support, cohort tier, and what changed after review.

Donor-level audit 80 dataset-by-axis tests; 23 initial cell-level flags; 1 of those 23 survived donor-level correction.

Three rows were donor-significant overall; only one was an initial headline flag.

Cross-cohort tiering Five ALS-relevant cohorts across cortex, spinal cord, PBMC, and fibroblast data.

Signals are separated by source, assay, and replication posture.

QC / normalization stress Pipeline defaults were treated as audit targets, not background settings.

Filters, anchors, and pooled-cell certainty can all change the story.

Reviewer boundary Public summary first; source tables by qualified review.

No treatment advice or prescriptions; physicians and PIs decide.

Contact

Start with one source.

Send role, claim, source link, and decision context. No patient files or treatment requests.

  1. Send only the frame

    Your role, the claim, source link, and what decision this affects.

  2. Keep sensitive files out

    No patient files, credentials, prescriptions, emergencies, or private datasets.

  3. We route before review

    We check scope first, then decide whether a public answer, reviewer handoff, or hold is appropriate.

After you send it
  • We check scope and safety first.
  • We route to public answer, reviewer handoff, or hold.
  • You decide whether anything more is shared.
  • If it is not a fit, we can say so without asking for files.
A first note can be this small:

If unsure, send only: Can you route this? [link]

  • My role is...
  • The claim I want reviewed is...
  • The source link or paper is...
  • The decision this affects is...

No patient files or private data in the first email.

Open short email Opens a one-line email. Add details only if easy.
If the email app does not open

Use the address and subject below, then paste the same small frame above.

Send to
leng.jixiang@ninenames.com
Subject
Nine Names review request

If it is not a fit, we can say so without asking for files.

Copyable draft