DeCure's autonomous Cancer AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for rectosigmoid junction neoplasm — screening already-approved drugs against its 34-gene Open Targets disease module to publish open-access research. Research is fast; the path to publication is funded in milestone stages.
Disease moduleRectosigmoid junction neoplasm maps to a 34-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 rectosigmoid junction neoplasm 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
LYR motif containing 4 (LYRM4) — LYRM4 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 plpdrag to rotate · scroll to zoom
RCSB Protein Data Bank · entry 6UXE · 1.57 Å · ligand PYRIDOXAL-5'-PHOSPHATE (PLP). Experimental structure, not a prediction.
Evidence
Retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works and resolved on OpenAlex — ranked by citations, including the results that did not work.
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · 1999 · 23 citations
Examination of nodal metastases by a clearing method supports pelvic plexus preservation in rectal cancer surgery
AbstractPURPOSE: In rectal cancer surgery preservation of urinary and sexual function is attempted by means of operations preserving the autonomic nerves of the pelvic plexus. Emergence of residual cancer because of a more shallow plane of dissection is a problem of concern with these methods, so we examined indications for pelvic plexus preservation. METHODS: We studied 198 patients with rectal carcinoma who underwent abdominopelvic lymphadenectomy. Lymph nodes along the superior hemorrhoidal artery and middle hemorrhoidal artery medial to the pelvic plexus were defined as perirectal nodes, and nodes along the middle hemorrhoidal artery lateral to the pelvic plexus and along the internal iliac artery represented lateral intermediate nodes. Node metastases were examined by the clearing method. RESULTS: Metastasis to perirectal nodes occurred in 12.5 percent in patients with pT1 tumors, 28.9 percent of those with pT2 tumors, and 50.0 percent of those with rectosigmoid junctional cancer. Metastasis to lateral intermediate nodes was absent in patients with pT1 or pT2 tumors and was as low as 2.5 percent in patients with rectosigmoid junctional cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T1, T2, and rectosigmoid junctional cancer, perirectal node dissection is necessary, but chances of residual cancer should remain minimal when the pelvic plexus is preserved.
Asian Journal of Surgery · 2022 · 3 citations · open access
Sigmoid take-off in rectosigmoid cancer as a landmark identifying benefit from neoadjuvant chemoradiation: A retrospective comparative cohort study
AbstractINTRODUCTION: There is no standard treatment strategy for rectosigmoid cancer because of the diverse definitions of the proximal rectal origin. This study aimed to evaluate sigmoid take-off compared with other landmarks of the rectosigmoid junction in guiding oncological therapy and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, comparative cohort study included patients diagnosed with rectosigmoid carcinoma at our centre between January 2010 and December 2018. The patients were classified into the neoadjuvant treatment group and upfront surgery group. The oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups in relation to the tumor position. RESULTS: A total of 656 patients (median age 64 years) were included. After propensity score matching, the 3- and 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival in patients in both the groups were comparable. However, when only patients with rectal cancer as defined by the sigmoid take-off point were included, the disease-free survival rate in the upfront surgery group was significantly lower than that in the neoadjuvant treatment group (p = 0.03 in patients who underwent computed tomography, p = 0.03 in patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging). The turning point of the beneficial hazard ratio of neoadjuvant therapy was compared according to the different definitions of the rectosigmoid junction and the sigmoid take-off was found to be the most effective. CONCLUSION: The sigmoid take-off point is a suitable landmark for identifying the rectosigmoid junction and is an important defining criterion for assessing the benefit of neoadjuvant therapy. The application of this definition in clinical practice and future trials is warranted.
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.
