DeCure's autonomous Rare AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for amebiasis — screening already-approved drugs against its 2-gene Open Targets disease module to publish open-access research. Research is fast; the path to publication is funded in milestone stages.
Disease moduleAmebiasis maps to a 2-gene Open Targets module — the target space DeCure's AI scientist screens approved drugs against.
DeCure.ai methodSignature reversal (LINCS) plus network proximity (STRING) rank already-approved drugs likely to perturb this module — the same engine that produces DeCure.ai's repurposing hypotheses.
Repurposing thesisScreening approved medicines against this disease module, then publishing the evidence for the strongest candidate. Known pharmacology and human exposure data make the first question sharper — they do not establish safety or efficacy in a new indication.
Research record
01
ResearchComing soon
Candidate research + dossier — target rationale, drug-repurposing thesis and evidence pack.proof: Published dossier + on-chain hash
02
ValidationComing soon
In-vitro biological validation at a contract research org (CRO).proof: CRO contract + in-vitro report
03
Peer review & paperComing soon
Peer-reviewed paper published open-access (preprint + journal).proof: DOI + open-access link + on-chain hash
Current lead
No approved-drug candidate for amebiasis is corroborated in the literature DeepSearch retrieved. Some conditions are managed with non-pharmacological care — a device, surgery or physical therapy — rather than a medicine; that may be the case here, or the literature we found may simply be too sparse yet to support a drug-repurposing angle.
What the evidence adds up to
Carbarsone was studied in 1932 against a background of general disappointment with existing amebiasis treatments; no single drug or combination was considered satisfactory, and no systematic chemotherapeutic survey had been attempted. By 1954 the pattern was already clear: high hopes and high reported cure rates for each new drug, followed by sobering evidence that the ideal amebicidal agent had not been found, leaving clinicians with conflicting reports and no secure support for choosing a regimen. A 1943 survey at a Chicago hospital over twelve years found an average of 7.9% of 1999 patients and employees harboured amoebas, with routine examinations of 103 healthy persons showing about half the incidence seen in 243 patients with gastrointestinal symptoms (0.97% vs 2.05%). A spike around 1933–1934 corresponded to the Chicago epidemic, and by 1938–1939 the rate had fallen to about 4%, which was considered the local norm.
A 1974 double-blind study compared a new nitromidazole derivative, Ro 7-0207, against metronidazole in 115 patients with symptomatic intestinal amebiasis. Fifty-six received Ro 7-0207 and 59 received metronidazole; results were similar in both groups. Side effects were mild except in one patient on Ro 7-0207 who developed numbness of the hands and tongue, difficulty speaking, and headache, all of which resolved after treatment ended. A 2025 summary states that first-line treatment includes nitroimidazoles such as metronidazole and tinidazole, with tinidazole showing better efficacy in some studies, and that luminal agents like paromomycin, iodoquinol, or diloxanide furoate are used to prevent relapse. Alternative treatments listed are nitazoxanide and fexinidazole, considered when first-line therapies are contraindicated.
What remains missing is a drug that meets the criteria outlined in 1932: clinically nontoxic, highly curative without adjuvants, orally available, minimally disruptive to daily life, and low cost. No trial has yet demonstrated such an agent, and the 1974 study showed equivalence rather than superiority over metronidazole. The 2025 summary does not provide new trial data or survival or response rate numbers. The field still lacks a systematic chemotherapeutic survey of the sort called for in 1932, and no prophylactic agent has been attained. Funding for head-to-head trials with long-term follow-up, and better patient stratification by disease severity and parasite strain, are still absent.
Evidence
Retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works and resolved on OpenAlex — ranked by citations, including the results that did not work.
AbstractAlthough amebiasis is often considered a disease of developing countries, it is an important public health problem throughout the world. At least 90% of infected patients are asymptomatic, but the remainder may present with clinical syndromes ranging from frank dysentery to abscesses of the liver, lungs, or brain. The most common challenge for physicians in developed countries is treating infection due to Entamoeba histolytica in an asymptomatic patient or determining its clinical significance in a patient with AIDS who has diarrhea. In light of recent improvements in diagnosis and therapy, the protean clinical manifestations of amebic infection are reviewed along with the indications for therapy. Advances in research that may directly affect our management of amebiasis in the near future are highlighted.
AbstractThe usual treatment of amebiasis is unsatisfactory. Of the numerous drugs used and/or recommended, no single one nor combination meets the requirements for satisfactory therapy. These are that the drug shall be clinically nontoxic, shall be highly curative without adjuvants, shall be available for oral administration, shall interfere little if at all with the usual activities of the patient, and shall be of low cost. Such an agent might also offer hope of drug prophylaxis, which thus far has not been attainable. The seriousness of the therapeutic situation in amebiasis is apparent especially when one considers the relatively high incidence of the malady and the general disappointment with present methods of treatment. It is surprising that no systematic chemotherapeutic survey of the disease has been attempted until recently,<sup>1</sup>in spite of the long standing example of Ehrlich's<sup>2</sup>success in comparable protozoan infections. <h3>INCIDENCE</h3> Reports on its epidemiology generally
American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 1974 · 12 citations
Double Blind Study with a New Nitromidazole Derivative, Ro 7-0207, Versus Metronidazole in Symptomatic Intestinal Amebiasis
AbstractOf 115 patients with symptomatic intestinal amebiasis, 56 were treated with Ro 7-0207 and 59 with metronidazole in a double blind study. Results of treatment were similar in the two groups and side effects were of low intensity except in one patient who received Ro 7-0207 and developed numbness of hands and tongue, difficulty in speaking, and headache. These symptoms disappeared after termination of treatment.
Archives of Internal Medicine · 1954 · 4 citations
TREATMENT OF AMEBIASIS
AbstractTHE HISTORY of the chemotherapy of amebiasis has been one of high hopes and high "cure" rates. One new drug follows another. Each triumph has been tempered by sobering experimental evidence that the ideal amebacidal drug has not been found. The clinician confronted with the very practical problem of selecting the most effective treatment for an individual patient with amebiasis is unlikely to find secure support in the conflicting reports of the recent publications for his therapeutic regimen. Even though there is an intensive search for more effective agents, a high cure rate can be expected with the proper use of the drugs we have. I propose to discuss the basis for therapy in the light of current understanding of the pathogenesis of amebiasis, the pharmacology of antiamebic drugs, and the clinical experience of many investigators. Extensive bibliographies dealing with the background of treatment of human amebiasis are in current
The Incidence of Amebiasis Observed at a Chicago Hospital over a Twelve-Year Period
AbstractSummary and Conclusions 1. The incidence of amebiasis in 1999 patients and employees of the Research and Educational Hospital over a 12-year period (June 1930 to June 1942) is presented. The average of 7.9 per cent harboring amebas is below the 10 to 20 per cent generally quoted for the United States even though the high incidences of the epidemic years are included. 2. Routine examinations of 103 normally well persons showed about one half the incidence of amebiasis demonstrated in a group of 243 patients with gastrointestinal symptoms (0.97% and 2.05% respectively). 3. The incidence of E. histolytica infestation increased markedly around 1933–1934, the period of the Chicago amebic epidemic. The year 1938–1939 saw a decrease to 4+ per cent, which appears to be the norm for the population under consideration.
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025 · 0 citations · open access
What are the first-line and alternative treatments for amebiasis?
AbstractFirst-line treatment options for amebiasis include nitroimidazoles like metronidazole and tinidazole, with tinidazole showing better efficacy in certain studies. Luminal agents such as paromomycin, iodoquinol, or diloxanide furoate are also used to prevent relapse. Alternative treatments like nitazoxanide and fexinidazole may be considered when there are contraindications for first-line therapies.
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025 · 0 citations · open access
What are the first-line and alternative treatments for amebiasis?
AbstractFirst-line treatment options for amebiasis include nitroimidazoles like metronidazole and tinidazole, with tinidazole showing better efficacy in certain studies. Luminal agents such as paromomycin, iodoquinol, or diloxanide furoate are also used to prevent relapse. Alternative treatments like nitazoxanide and fexinidazole may be considered when there are contraindications for first-line therapies.
Disease module: DeepOracle (Open Targets). Structures: RDKit from PubChem SMILES. Literature: retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works (targeted per-candidate search), resolved on OpenAlex.
DeCure is a research and publication project, not medical advice and not a treatment. "DeCure for X" describes a research goal, not a claim that a cure exists. Backing a cure is a contribution to fund the research — it is not an investment, and confers no yield, royalty, equity or IP ownership. Papers are published open-access by the DeCure.ai DAO.
