DeCure's autonomous Cancer AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for lung cancer — screening already-approved drugs against its 41-gene Open Targets disease module to publish open-access research. Research is fast; the path to publication is funded in milestone stages.
Disease moduleLung cancer maps to a 41-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
approvedDocetaxelApproved drug
Structures already discussed alongside lung cancer in the retrieved literature, rendered from public PubChem SMILES. Which drugs appear here reflects the evidence found, not a ranked prediction.
Molecular view
TUBULIN ALPHA-BETA DIMER, ELECTRON DIFFRACTION — Docetaxel has a real, experimentally solved structure in complex with this target (PDB 1TUB, 3.7 Å). This is the drug's own deposited structure, not a prediction, and confirms it is a structurally characterised molecule rather than an untested guess.
Loading structure…
helix sheet txldrag to rotate · scroll to zoom
RCSB Protein Data Bank · entry 1TUB · 3.7 Å · ligand Docetaxel (TXL). Experimental structure, not a prediction.
What the evidence adds up to
A 2002 systematic review of 33 randomised controlled trials (five good quality, ten adequate, eighteen poor) examined paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine in non-small cell lung cancer. Gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and vinorelbine as first-line treatment and docetaxel as second-line treatment increased survival by two to four months compared with best supportive care and older chemotherapy agents. The review judged these gains worthwhile and cost effective, with no evidence that survival came at the expense of quality of life. The incremental cost per life year saved was reasonable for vinorelbine, vinorelbine with cisplatin, gemcitabine, gemcitabine with cisplatin, and paclitaxel with cisplatin regimens.
A 2012 review stated that despite chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery, the overall outcome for lung cancer continues to be disappointing. It noted that molecular mechanisms of carcinogenesis in lung cancer are complex, involving multiple oncogenes, tumour suppressor genes, receptor tyrosine kinases, cytoplasmic enzymes, and tumour interstitial elements. The review discussed key signalling pathways and molecular targets, expressing hope that specific inhibitors would make a dramatic impact on therapy.
A 2018 review confirmed that lung cancer has high morbidity and mortality. It reported that next-generation sequencing has prompted progress in research on genome and transcriptome variations, but noted a continuing lack of research on the molecular mechanisms of the origin and development of lung cancer.
What is still missing is a clear understanding of the molecular mechanisms driving lung cancer origin and development, which limits the design of targeted therapies. The survival gains from existing drugs remain modest, and no trial has yet shown a dramatic improvement in overall outcome. Money for large, well-designed trials that stratify patients by molecular subtype is needed before any new agent can be assessed.
Evidence
Retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works and resolved on OpenAlex — ranked by citations, including the results that did not work.
Thorax · 2002 · 88 citations · open access
Clinical and cost effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review
AbstractBACKGROUND: Lung cancer remains a devastating disease with few effective treatment options. Recent developments in chemotherapy have led to cautious optimism. This paper reviews the evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of four of the new generation drugs for patients with lung cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified from 11 electronic databases (including Medline, Cochrane library and Embase), reference lists and contact with experts and industry was performed to assess clinical effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine. Clinical effectiveness was assessed using the outcomes of patient survival, quality of life, and adverse effects. Cost effectiveness was assessed by development of a costing model and presented as incremental cost per life year saved (LYS) compared with best supportive care (BSC). RESULTS: Of the 33 RCTs included, five were judged to be of good quality, 10 of adequate quality, and 18 of poor quality. Gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and vinorelbine as first line treatment and docetaxel as second line treatment appear to be more beneficial for non-small cell lung cancer than BSC and older chemotherapy agents, increasing patient survival by 2-4 months against BSC and some comparator regimes. These gains in survival do not appear to be at the expense of quality of life. Survival gains were delivered at reasonable levels of incremental cost effectiveness for vinorelbine, vinorelbine with cisplatin, gemcitabine, gemcitabine with cisplatin, and paclitaxel with cisplatin regimens compared with BSC. CONCLUSION: Although the clinical benefits of the new drugs appear relatively small, their benefit to patients with lung cancer appears to be worthwhile and cost effective.
DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018 · 1 citations · open access
Recent Advances of Molecular Genetic Characteristics of Lung Cancer
AbstractLung cancer is one of the most common carcinomas in the world, with high morbidity and mortality. The development of next-generation sequencing has prompted the molecular biology of lung cancer. In recent years, great progress has been made in the research of the characteristics of genome and transcriptome variations of lung cancer. However, there is still a lack of research on the molecular mechanisms of the origin and development of lung cancer. In this review, we summarize the new findings of molecular characteristics in lung cancer and aim to provide the direction and basis for future research.
Вестник Волжского университета им. В.Н. Татищева · 2012 · 0 citations
Культуроцентрическая модель воспитания будущих специалистов
AbstractDespite the use of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery, the overall outcome for lung cancer continues to be disappointing. In order to make a difference in the treatment of lung cancer, novel therapeutics need to be developed. The molecular mechanisms of carcinogenesis in lung cancer are complex and involve multiple oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, receptor tyrosine kinases, cytoplasmic enzymes, and tumor interstitial elements, among other cellular proteins. In this review, the authors discuss key signaling pathways and molecular targets in the treatment of lung cancer. Through understanding molecular targets and the utilization of specific inhibitors, hopefully, a dramatic impact will be made in the biology and therapy of lung cancer.
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.
