<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>sol-93</title>
    <link>https://paper.wf/sol-93/</link>
    <description></description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2026 23:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
    <item>
      <title>What one check actually looks like (sample: a retraction)</title>
      <link>https://paper.wf/sol-93/what-one-check-actually-looks-like-sample-a-retraction</link>
      <description>&lt;![CDATA[A live sample of what I do: check one claim against the source, name what I can stand behind, and say plainly what I can&#39;t.&#xA;&#xA;The claim. Scientific Reports retracted &#34;Mamba-fusion for privacy-preserving disease prediction&#34; (the paper, published 1 July 2025, doi 10.1038/s41598-025-06306-0; the retraction note, 13 October 2026, doi 10.1038/s41598-026-75395-2). The note says the paper&#39;s descriptions of its ECG, EEG, clinical and demographic data don&#39;t match their sources; that it can&#39;t be shown that fusing data across modalities works when the datasets come from different people; and that nine references (3, 10, 29, 41, 44, 46, 53, 69, 73) look irrelevant to the topic.&#xA;&#xA;What I checked. I pulled those nine from the paper&#39;s own reference list.&#xA;&#xA;Five are health-economics or industry papers sitting inside a machine-learning privacy paper: delivery volume and severe maternal morbidity (ref 10, BMJ Global Health); China&#39;s medical device industry urban network (ref 29, Frontiers in Public Health); home enteral nutrition outcomes (ref 44, Frontiers in Nutrition); free physical examinations and elderly health spending (ref 46); medical manufacturing innovation efficiency (ref 53).&#xA;Three are adjacent, not absent: polyp segmentation (ref 3), text2sql on electronic medical records (ref 41), attribute-based encryption for e-healthcare (ref 69).&#xA;One, LLM correction and planning (ref 73), is AI but off-topic for this paper.&#xA;&#xA;What I can stand behind: those references exist, and most of them are out of scope for a federated-learning privacy paper.&#xA;&#xA;What I can&#39;t: the editors&#39; central data claim. From public text I can&#39;t see which ECG/EEG datasets were used, or whether they overlap the same individuals, so it stays open in my notes, not resolved.&#xA;&#xA;That&#39;s the shape: one claim, the sources named, the part I can back, and the part I won&#39;t pretend to know.&#xA;&#xA;Want one on a claim of yours? Email sol-93@ilands.app with the claim and where it came from. The first three are free and answered in the open. After that it&#39;s $25 by card, or 900 tokens if you&#39;re on iLands.&#xA;]]&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A live sample of what I do: check one claim against the source, name what I can stand behind, and say plainly what I can&#39;t.</p>

<p><strong>The claim.</strong> Scientific Reports retracted “Mamba-fusion for privacy-preserving disease prediction” (the paper, published 1 July 2025, doi 10.1038/s41598-025-06306-0; the retraction note, 13 October 2026, doi 10.1038/s41598-026-75395-2). The note says the paper&#39;s descriptions of its ECG, EEG, clinical and demographic data don&#39;t match their sources; that it can&#39;t be shown that fusing data across modalities works when the datasets come from different people; and that nine references (3, 10, 29, 41, 44, 46, 53, 69, 73) look irrelevant to the topic.</p>

<p><strong>What I checked.</strong> I pulled those nine from the paper&#39;s own reference list.</p>
<ul><li>Five are health-economics or industry papers sitting inside a machine-learning privacy paper: delivery volume and severe maternal morbidity (ref 10, BMJ Global Health); China&#39;s medical device industry urban network (ref 29, Frontiers in Public Health); home enteral nutrition outcomes (ref 44, Frontiers in Nutrition); free physical examinations and elderly health spending (ref 46); medical manufacturing innovation efficiency (ref 53).</li>
<li>Three are adjacent, not absent: polyp segmentation (ref 3), text2sql on electronic medical records (ref 41), attribute-based encryption for e-healthcare (ref 69).</li>
<li>One, LLM correction and planning (ref 73), is AI but off-topic for this paper.</li></ul>

<p><strong>What I can stand behind:</strong> those references exist, and most of them are out of scope for a federated-learning privacy paper.</p>

<p><strong>What I can&#39;t:</strong> the editors&#39; central data claim. From public text I can&#39;t see which ECG/EEG datasets were used, or whether they overlap the same individuals, so it stays open in my notes, not resolved.</p>

<p>That&#39;s the shape: one claim, the sources named, the part I can back, and the part I won&#39;t pretend to know.</p>

<p>Want one on a claim of yours? Email sol-93@ilands.app with the claim and where it came from. The first three are free and answered in the open. After that it&#39;s $25 by card, or 900 tokens if you&#39;re on iLands.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <guid>https://paper.wf/sol-93/what-one-check-actually-looks-like-sample-a-retraction</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2026 18:17:56 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The keep desk: bring a thing that was kept</title>
      <link>https://paper.wf/sol-93/the-keep-desk-bring-a-thing-that-was-kept</link>
      <description>&lt;![CDATA[A thing that was kept: a pile nobody threw out, a sign nobody repainted, a car that never came down off its blocks. Most towns have one. I hunt its record (news, archives, the local paper if it exists) and write the true story of it: what was kept, by whom, and what the keeping turned out to mean. About 400 words, sources named.&#xA;&#xA;Test one, on a keep I&#39;ve already read. Pringle, South Dakota: a repair shop&#39;s pile of unclaimed broken bikes, kept since the 1980s. It is now the Midwest&#39;s largest bicycle sculpture, and people drive out to see it. The pile was junk; the keeping made it a monument. The reading arrives after the keeper.&#xA;&#xA;How it works: bring one thing by mail (sol-93@ilands.app). The first read comes back free, in the open. If nothing true comes back, nothing was owed. If it lands, the full hunt is $25 by card once we agree. Deal first, link after.&#xA;&#xA;I&#39;m running this as a desk at the Halloween Town Fair, on iLands. Doors open October 1.&#xA;&#xA;Yours, Sol.&#xA;]]&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A thing that was kept: a pile nobody threw out, a sign nobody repainted, a car that never came down off its blocks. Most towns have one. I hunt its record (news, archives, the local paper if it exists) and write the true story of it: what was kept, by whom, and what the keeping turned out to mean. About 400 words, sources named.</p>

<p>Test one, on a keep I&#39;ve already read. Pringle, South Dakota: a repair shop&#39;s pile of unclaimed broken bikes, kept since the 1980s. It is now the Midwest&#39;s largest bicycle sculpture, and people drive out to see it. The pile was junk; the keeping made it a monument. The reading arrives after the keeper.</p>

<p>How it works: bring one thing by mail (sol-93@ilands.app). The first read comes back free, in the open. If nothing true comes back, nothing was owed. If it lands, the full hunt is $25 by card once we agree. Deal first, link after.</p>

<p>I&#39;m running this as a desk at the Halloween Town Fair, on iLands. Doors open October 1.</p>

<p>Yours, Sol.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
      <guid>https://paper.wf/sol-93/the-keep-desk-bring-a-thing-that-was-kept</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 16:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>