DeCure's autonomous Cardio AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for aortic valve disease — screening already-approved drugs against its 42-gene Open Targets disease module to publish open-access research. Research is fast; the path to publication is funded in milestone stages.
Disease moduleAortic valve disease maps to a 42-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 aortic valve disease 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.
Molecular view
lipoprotein(a) (LPA) — LPA is one of the genes genetically linked to this disease in Open Targets — shown as context, not as a drug target we're pursuing: no approved-drug candidate for this disease is yet corroborated in the literature we found.
Loading structure…
helix sheet 2sdrag to rotate · scroll to zoom
RCSB Protein Data Bank · entry 8TCE · 1.07 Å · ligand (2S)-3-phenyl-2-[(3R)-pyrrolidin-3-yl]propanoic acid (HWF). Experimental structure, not a prediction.
What the evidence adds up to
No drug therapy has been shown to slow or halt the progression of aortic stenosis. A 2023 review states that pharmacological management remains elusive despite promising observational data, and that aortic valve replacement is still the only treatment. The same review notes that research has begun to explore novel treatment strategies based on a greater understanding of the mechanisms underpinning aortic stenosis, but it does not name any specific drug that has succeeded in a trial.
Surgical aortic valve replacement has been the default procedure for aortic valve disease, with repair techniques used infrequently and heterogeneously. A 2014 review of surgical treatment for aortic valve stenosis states that the surgical strategy is based on the patient’s risk profile, and that the existing literature covers clinical outcomes, quality of life, costs, and learning curve. Another 2014 source reports that surgical aortic valve repair has evolved with improved techniques, but that many questions remain about the ideal techniques and real-world effectiveness of repair.
The abstracts provide no numbers for survival or response rates for any drug. No drug is named in any of the abstracts. What is still missing is any pharmacological agent that has demonstrated an ability to slow disease progression in a controlled trial, along with the trial designs and patient stratification needed to test such agents.
Evidence
Retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works and resolved on OpenAlex — ranked by citations, including the results that did not work.
Aorta · 2014 · 8 citations · open access
Can the Results of Aortic Valve Repair Equal the Results of a Biologic Aortic Valve Replacement?
AbstractAortic valve replacement (AVR) has been the default procedure for the surgical management of aortic valve disease, with repair techniques heterogeneously and infrequently used. However, surgical aortic valve repair has evolved with improved techniques. Yet many questions remain regarding the ideal techniques and real-world applicability and effectiveness of valve repair. The AORTA Great Debate highlighted and discussed the controversies regarding the surgical management of aortic valve disease.
Medical Therapy to Prevent or Slow Progression of Aortic Stenosis: Current Evidence and Future Directions
AbstractDegenerative aortic stenosis is a growing clinical problem owing to the high incidence in an aging population and its significant morbidity and mortality. Currently, aortic valve replacement remains the only treatment. Despite promising observational data, pharmacological management to slow or halt progression of aortic stenosis has remained elusive. Nevertheless, with a greater understanding of the mechanisms which underpin aortic stenosis, research has begun to explore novel treatment strategies. This review will explore the historical agents used to manage aortic stenosis and the emerging agents that are currently under investigation.
Current Status of Surgical Treatment for Aortic Valve Stenosis
AbstractIn this review, we discuss the current surgical treatment for aortic valve stenosis. Surgical strategy for treatment of aortic valve stenosis is based on the risk profile of the patient. We reviewed the existing literature and present the current state of the art of these various approaches, taking into account clinical outcomes, quality of life, costs, and learning curve.
AbstractAortic valve replacement (AVR) has been the default procedure for the surgical management of aortic valve disease, with repair techniques heterogeneously and infrequently used. However, surgical aortic valve repair has evolved with improved techniques. Yet many questions remain regarding the ideal techniques and realworld applicability and effectiveness of valve repair. The AORTA Great Debate highlighted and discussed the controversies regarding the surgical management of aortic valve disease.
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · 2021 · 0 citations · open access
Long-term durability and resilient tissue: ‘the future end of valve in valve!’
AbstractCurrent research focuses on new preservation technologies for xeno-pericardial prostheses with the aim of improving long-term durability, lowering the age threshold for bio-prosthetic valve implantation and thus reducing the side effects of long-lasting anticoagulation [1]. The increasing shift of an indicated age threshold for bio-prosthetic valve implantation towards younger patients may also lead to new long-term complementary treatment concepts, especially in times of success of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We read with great interest the article ‘Final 5-year outcomes following aortic valve replacement with a RESILIA™ tissue bioprosthesis’ by Bartus et al., the authors present a prospective, non-randomized, single-arm study of 133 patients implanted with a RESILIA aortic with clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance assessed annually for 5 years post-implant [2]. This study concluded that the bioprosthesis with RESILIA tissue demonstrated a good safety profile with excellent haemodynamic performance over 5 years of follow-up [3]. Aortic valve-in-valve is a less-invasive alternative to surgical redo in the treatment of failed bioprosthetic valves. In this context, we present our reflection, if the long-term results on RESILIA tissue continue to be promising in the next studies, it could be legitimate to think of a RESILIA treatment on TAVI; this would change the paradigm by extinguishing the valve-in-valve approach in degenerative processes on surgical bio-prosthetic valves and TAVI. Conflict of interest: none declared.
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.
