DeCure's autonomous Rare AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for iritis — screening already-approved drugs against its 6-gene Open Targets disease module to publish open-access research. Research is fast; the path to publication is funded in milestone stages.
Disease moduleIritis maps to a 6-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 iritis 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
endoplasmic reticulum aminopeptidase 1 (ERAP1) — ERAP1 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 pgedrag to rotate · scroll to zoom
RCSB Protein Data Bank · entry 6RQX · 1.68 Å · ligand TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL (PGE). Experimental structure, not a prediction.
What the evidence adds up to
A one-minute test, performed without instruments by non-medical staff in isolation, detected 74% of iritis cases among 426 patients with miscellaneous eye complaints in a 1987 study. The authors argued this could enable earlier detection and referral, potentially preventing blinding complications such as cataract and glaucoma. No further data on the test's specificity or on outcomes in the detected patients were provided in the abstract.
A 1926 study reported on 100 cases of iritis from 1916 and 1923, in which infections elsewhere in the body were identified and removed where possible. The authors then obtained follow-up reports on the first 50 of these cases, three to twelve years later, regarding recurrence of iritis. The abstract states that iritis may be limited to one attack whether the probable causative infection is removed or not, but does not give the actual recurrence rates for those who had infections removed versus those who did not.
A 1947 abstract describes the historical difficulty in recognising gonorrheal iritis, noting it was confused with syphilis, with arthritis, and with purulent gonorrheal conjunctivitis. It lists numerous 19th-century clinicians whose case reports established the clinical picture, and states that proof of the gonorrheal origin had to wait for Neisser's discovery of the causative organism. No treatment data or patient outcomes are given.
A 1923 paper proposes a new classification for iritis and iridocyclitis, arguing that better classification aids diagnosis and treatment. It contains no patient data, no test results, and no treatment outcomes. What is missing across these abstracts is any controlled trial of a treatment for iritis, any modern randomised evidence, any data on patient stratification by cause, and any funding for such work.
Evidence
Retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works and resolved on OpenAlex — ranked by citations, including the results that did not work.
BMJ · 1987 · 14 citations · open access
Idiopathic third cranial nerve palsy associated with herpes simplex virus infection.
AbstractThis one minute test, which does not require instruments and was performed in isolation by non-medical staff, detected 74% of cases of iritis out of 426 patients with miscellaneous eye complaints.It should enable doctors to detect and refer patients with iritis earlier and so prevent potentially blinding complications such as cataract and glaucoma.
RECURRENCE OF IRITIS AS INFLUENCED BY THE REMOVAL OF INFECTIONS
AbstractIn 1916 and in 1923 we<sup>1</sup>reported two series of 100 cases each of iritis, in which careful studies of each patient were made to determine what kinds of infection were present and the probable cause of the iritis. The infections found were removed, so far as possible, and the effects on the eye noted. From these studies, as well as from experiments in animals,<sup>2</sup>it seemed evident that iritis is frequently caused by infections in other parts of the body. From three to twelve years have now elapsed since these patients were studied, and we now present a summary of the first fifty cases from which we have been able to obtain reports with reference to recurrence. It is, of course, recognized that iritis may be limited to one attack, whether the probable causative infection is removed or not, but it is also true that iritis just
Very low birthweight survivors: illness and rehospitalisation in the first fifteen months of life
AbstractThis one minute test, which does not require instruments and was performed in isolation by non-medical staff, detected 74% of cases of iritis out of 426 patients with miscellaneous eye complaints.It should enable doctors to detect and refer patients with iritis earlier and so prevent potentially blinding complications such as cataract and glaucoma.
AbstractGONORRHEAL IRITIS IN MAN THE RECOGNITION of gonorrheal iritis has been delayed by several factors. First, Hunter's classic self inoculation resulted in gonorrhea and syphilis being considered for decades as manifestations of a single disease. Second, the association of iritis with arthritis of various kinds, including the gonorrheal, served to complicate matters. Third, gonorrheal iritis tended to be mistaken for the more commonly encountered purulent gonorrheal conjunctivitis, from which it had to be distinguished. The clinical picture of gonorrheal iritis slowly emerged from the case reports and studies of Brodie, 1 Vetch, 2 Travers, 3 Frick, 4 Lawrence, 5 Mackenzie, 6 de Wecker, 7 Forster, 8 Fournier and Galezowski, 9 Hutchin- son, 10 Griffith, 11 Lawford and others, 12 Beaumont, 13 Cobbledick 14 and many others. Proof of the gonorrheal origin of the iritis was slow in forthcoming. Of necessity, it had to wait on the discovery by Neisser 15
A PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION OF IRITIS AND IRIDOCYCLITIS
AbstractThe question may be asked with great propriety whether another classification of iritis and iridocyclitis is needed or even worthy of consideration. While it may be said that it is not demanded, yet some feel that it is desirable. This concerns, particularly, teachers, who are endeavoring to develop and drive home fundamental truths, but also clinicians, whose most difficult task is frequently diagnosis. Whatever contributes to orderly ways of thinking adds, not only to a better analysis of disease, but to more efficient treatment. Consequently, the subject should interest both teachers and practitioners. That there is more or less confusion, in the arrangement of uveal disease is evident from even a casual review of the various textbooks. That confusion should exist is quite natural because such correlations are the gradual outgrowth of the clinical manifestations of uveal disease as it has been observed since the beginning of medical time, rather
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.
