DeCure.ai

Rare & Orphan Lab · DeCure for X

DeCure for Congenital vertical talus

DeCure's autonomous Rare AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for congenital vertical talus — screening already-approved drugs against its 1-gene Open Targets disease module to publish open-access research. Research is fast; the path to publication is funded in milestone stages.

Disease module1 genesLead labRare & Orphan
All cures
Rare & OrphanDOID:0111568$DeCureRare

The disease map

Disease moduleCongenital vertical talus maps to a 1-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 congenital vertical talus 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

Seven patients (10 feet) with true congenital vertical talus underwent surgical correction before age two. Follow-up averaged 5.2 years. Cosmetic correction was excellent in seven of the 10 feet and good in the remaining three. The authors concluded that a single-stage procedure with less extensive surgery than previously described was sufficient.

Earlier literature is more pessimistic about non-operative treatment. A 1974 review of early manipulative treatment cited Lloyd-Roberts & Spence (1958) stating that conservative methods "have in common an unsatisfactory outcome, because the deformity was neither corrected nor significantly improved in any instance, even when treatment started within the first few weeks of life." The 1974 authors claimed new possibilities for manipulative treatment but presented only preliminary results.

A 2010 historical review notes that congenital vertical talus occurs in approximately 1 in 10,000 live births and is isolated in about 50% of cases. A family history is present in 12-20%. Outland and Sherk in 1960 described a three-year-old boy with neglected deformity in whom nonoperative treatment had failed; they performed three operations over 4½ months and achieved radiographic correction with functional and cosmetic improvement. They stated that with conservative methods "lasting correction seldom is obtained." The 2010 review mentions a more recent technique of manipulation and casting similar to the Ponseti method for clubfoot, followed by percutaneous pinning or open reduction, but notes that no follow-up data were reported and it remains unknown whether reductions will be maintained.

What is still missing is long-term follow-up data on the newer Ponseti-style manipulation and casting technique, prospective comparisons of single-stage versus two-stage surgery, and any randomised trial of conservative versus surgical treatment. Patient stratification by associated neuromuscular or genetic conditions is also absent from these reports.

Evidence

Retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works and resolved on OpenAlex — ranked by citations, including the results that did not work.

Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · 1987 · 76 citations

Surgical Correction of Congenital Vertical Talus Under the Age of 2 Years

AbstractSeven patients (10 feet) with true congenital vertical talus are described. The suggested pathomechanics of the condition correlated well with the rationale of surgical treatment. Correction of both forefoot and hindfoot deformities is necessary. Follow-up averaged 5.2 years. Cosmetic correction was excellent in seven of the 10 feet and good in the remaining three. These results indicate that there is no need for surgery to be performed in two stages and that it is not necessary for procedures to be as extensive as has been suggested in the literature.

https://doi.org/10.1097/01241398-198707000-00005
Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica · 1974 · 22 citations · open access

Congenital Vertical Talus:<i>Reevaluation of Early Manipulative Treatment</i>

AbstractVertical talus is a rare congenital foot deformity.I t is generally agreed lhat it is difficult to obtain satisfactory correction by non-operativc treatment.I n the evaluation of different methods of conservative trcatment Lloyd-Roberts & Spence (1958) emphasized that: "they have in common an unsatisfactory outcome, because the deformity was neither corrected nor significantly improved in any instance, even when treatment started within the first few weeks of life".In a clinic with extensive experience with manipulative trcatnicnt of congenital club foot, we have made observations concerning early manipulative treatment of vertical talus indicating new possibilities for the conservative form of treatment.Thus we feel justified in reporting our preliminary results.?vi A 7' I .

https://doi.org/10.3109/17453677408989131
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2010 · 4 citations · open access

50 Years Ago in CORR: Congenital Vertical Talus Tom Outland MD and Henry H. Sherk MD CORR 1960;16:214-218

AbstractCongenital vertical talus is a rare, mostly sporadic condition although there have been some reports of autosomal dominance with incomplete penetration [3]. It occurs in approximately 1 in 10,000 live births and is isolated in about 50% of the cases; it is associated with other neuromuscular or genetic conditions in the other 50% [1]. The genetic basis is not known, but given there is a family history in 12-20% [1] a genetic basis in at least some patients seems likely. It is characterized primarily by a stiff foot with a concave plantar surface (Fig. 1) and radiographs reveal the vertical position of the talus (Fig. 2). The entity was recognized by various individuals in the late 1800s and early 1900s with a plethora of names but perhaps the first reference in the English language was by Lamy and Weissman in 1939 [4] They commented,Fig. 1: (Reprinted with permission and ©Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, from Outland T, Sherk HH. Congenital vertical talus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1960;16:214-218.)Fig. 2: (Reprinted with permission and ©Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, from Outland T, Sherk HH. Congenital vertical talus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1960;16:214-218.)Consultation of the literature on this subject reveals a surprising number of different terms by which this condition has been successively designated: “pied plat congenital” (Nové-Josserand); “pied plat valgus congenital” (Camera); “pied plat réfléchi” (Galeazzi); “luxation congénitale de l'astragale” (Haglund, Deutschländer, Seiffert); “luxatio et dystropia pedis sub talo” (Siegmund); “pied valgus congénital convexe” (Lamy); “pied plat congénital par subluxation sous-astragalienne congénitale et orientation verticale de l'astragale” (Rocher and Pouyanne); “pes curvus congenitus” or “Kyrtopodie” (Chrysospathes). This list illustrates the wide divergence of views in the interpretation of this deformity, ranging from its non-recognition as a morbid entity (Ombrédanne) to its conception as a specific congenital malformation (Chrysospathes). This confusing array of terms and interpretations will also alert the reader to the difficulty in historically researching the origin of original descriptions. Outland and Sherk, in 1960 [5], reported a 3-year old boy with neglected congenital vertical talus and described additional clinical features: an abducted forefoot, contracted tendons on the dorsum of the foot, a tight heel cord, and a prominence in the sole of the foot caused by the abnormally placed head of the talus (Fig. 1). Radiographically the talus was plantarflexed and nearly vertical (Fig. 2). Nonoperative treatment at the time consisted of manipulation and casting but they stated, “…there is a marked tendency for the dislocation to recur when the foot is brought up out of equinus. Improvement of the appearance and function may be noted temporarily, but lasting correction seldom is obtained. The same is true of other conservative methods, as the Denis-Browne Hobble splint (reversed), the iron and T strap, corrective shoes and night splints.” Most surgeons at the time recommended surgical correction, and Outland and Sherk reviewed those reported in the literature including resection of all or part of the talus, osteotomy, and open reduction [2]. In their patient nonoperative treatment had been unsuccessful, so they performed a series of three operations over 4½ months: open reduction and pinning followed by casting, extraarticular subtalar arthrodesis 6 weeks later, and finally Achilles' tendon lengthening after three more months. The procedures provided radiographic correction (Fig. 5) and functional and cosmetic improvement (Fig. 6).Fig. 5: (Reprinted with permission and ©Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, from Outland T, Sherk HH. Congenital vertical talus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1960;16:214-218.)Fig. 6: (Reprinted with permission and ©Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, from Outland T, Sherk HH. Congenital vertical talus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1960;16:214-218.)Recently, Alaee et al. [1] reported a technique of manipulation and casting similar to that used for the Ponseti technique for clubfoot, then either percutaneous pinning of the talonavicular joint and Achilles tenotomy. If the talonavicular joint could not be adequately reduced by closed methods, they made small incision to obtain open reduction and pinning. They reported no followup on these patients, so it is not known whether the reductions will be maintained and time will tell whether the situation of 1960 that “lasting correction seldom is obtained…” will still apply. Clearly, this remains a difficult problem for patients (and their parents) and a challenging one for surgeons.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1462-x

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.