DeCure's autonomous Rare AI scientist is researching a drug-repurposing hypothesis for refractive error — screening already-approved drugs against its 36-gene Open Targets disease module to publish open-access research. Research is fast; the path to publication is funded in milestone stages.
Disease moduleRefractive error maps to a 36-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 refractive error 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
BicC family RNA binding protein 1 (BICC1) — BICC1 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 xpedrag to rotate · scroll to zoom
RCSB Protein Data Bank · entry 6GY4 · 1.986 Å · ligand 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27-NONAOXANONACOSANE-1,29-DIOL (XPE). Experimental structure, not a prediction.
What the evidence adds up to
In a Singapore birth cohort of 572 three-year-olds, 6.1% had early-onset myopia. Children with two myopic parents were more likely to have a more myopic spherical equivalent (regression coefficient −0.36, 95% CI −0.61 to −0.11) and longer axial length (0.24 mm, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.39), and had an odds ratio of 4.8 (95% CI 1.4 to 16.6) for myopia. Neither near work nor outdoor activity was associated with spherical equivalent, axial length, or myopia. The authors concluded that genetic factors may contribute more than environmental factors to early refractive error development.
The Beaver Dam Eye Study examined 2138 adults in 620 extended pedigrees. After adjustment for age, sex, and education, sibling correlation for refractive error was 0.33, parent-offspring correlation 0.17, cousin correlation 0.10, and avuncular correlation 0.08. Segregation analysis did not support a single major locus for the full range of refractive error, but models including polygenic effects fit better than those without, suggesting several genes of modest effect may act with environmental factors.
In Kahama District, Tanzania, a community survey of 3230 people aged 15 years and older found refractive error prevalence of 7.5% (95% CI 6.65 to 8.54) and presbyopia prevalence of 46.5% (95% CI 44.34 to 48.75). Spectacle coverage was 1.69% for refractive error and 0.42% for presbyopia. Visual impairment prevalence was 10.4% (95% CI 9.4 to 11.4), higher in those over 40 (OR 3.17, 95% CI 2.14 to 4.70) and farmers (OR 8.57, 95% CI 2.27 to 32.43), and lower in those who completed primary school (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.72). In the Shahroud Eye Cohort Study in Iran, horizontal inequity in unmet refractive error decreased from −0.288 (95% CI −0.370 to −0.206) in 2009 to −0.132 (95% CI −0.290 to −0.028) in 2014 among 40- to 64-year-olds. Education and economic status contributed 26.2% and 17.9% respectively to reducing inequity.
A retrospective review of 74 patients compared refraction under atropine 1% versus a combination of cyclopentolate 1% and tropicamide 1%. Atropine uncovered significantly more hypermetropia across all age groups, amounts of hypermetropia, and sizes of esodeviation. In 11% of right eyes and 19% of left eyes, atropine revealed 1.25 dioptres or more of hypermetropia not seen with the combination. No drug is being repurposed here; the abstracts address genetic epidemiology, population prevalence, and cycloplegic technique. What remains missing are trials of any pharmacological intervention to prevent or slow refractive error progression, and any data on how genetic or environmental risk factors might guide patient stratification for such trials.
Evidence
Retrieved by DeepSearch across 234,678,978 indexed works and resolved on OpenAlex — ranked by citations, including the results that did not work.
Relative Contribution of Risk Factors for Early-Onset Myopia in Young Asian Children
AbstractPURPOSE: To investigate the associations of near work, outdoor activity, and anthropometric risk factors with early-onset myopia in Singaporean preschool children. METHODS: Pregnant women who attended their first-trimester clinic at two major maternity units were recruited for the GUSTO birth cohort (n = 1236). Cycloplegic autorefraction and axial length (AL) were obtained in 3-year-old children (n = 572). Parents completed detailed questionnaires on parental myopia, near work, and outdoor activities when the child was 2 years of age. Height and weight were measured in the children at various time points from birth to 3 years of age. RESULTS: Among the cohort of 572 children, 35 children (6.1%) had early-onset myopia. In multivariable regression models, compared to children whose parents were not myopic, those with two myopic parents were more likely to have a more myopic spherical equivalent (SE) (regression coefficient: -0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.61 to -0.11) and longer AL (regression coefficient: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.10-0.39) and more likely to have myopia (odds ratio [OR] = 4.8; 95% CI: 1.4-16.6). Neither near work nor outdoor activity was associated with SE, AL, and myopia. Taller children were found to have longer AL at birth and at 12, 24, and 36 months, but there were no associations with SE. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic factors may have a greater contribution to early development of refractive error compared to environmental factors.
Reliability and Validity of Refractive Error–Specific Quality-of-Life Instruments
AbstractOBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument (NEI-RQL-42) and the Refractive Status and Vision Profile survey (RSVP). METHODS: Eighty-one participants with good visual acuity (better than 20/30 best-corrected acuity in each eye) completed the NEI-RQL-42 and RSVP on 2 occasions. Noncycloplegic, subjective refractions and high-contrast visual acuity assessments were also performed. Statistical analyses addressed internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and validity (ie, concurrent and construct validity) of the 2 instruments. OUTCOME MEASURES: The NEI-RQL-42, RSVP survey, subjective refraction, and visual acuity. RESULTS: The internal consistency for the overall NEI-RQL-42 was excellent (Cronbach alpha = 0.91); and for the overall RSVP, good (Cronbach alpha = 0.81). Likewise, the test-retest reliability for the overall NEI-RQL-42 was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.91; 95% limits of agreement, -9.1 to 10.1); and for the RSVP, fair (ICC, 0.76; 95% limits of agreement, -12.1 to 12.5). The NEI-RQL-42 overall score showed good concurrent validity as it correlated significantly with subjective refraction, whereas the RSVP overall score did not. The NEI-RQL-42 and RSVP showed similar construct validity in terms of refractive error discrimination, but the NEI-RQL-42 showed better construct validity when discriminating by the type of refractive correction used by patients. Between-instrument convergent and divergent validity was good. CONCLUSIONS: The NEI-RQL-42 and RSVP generally have good reliability and validity in this sample of patients with refractive error. However, other factors such as content should be considered in choosing 1 of these instruments for studies of refractive error correction.
Support for Polygenic Influences on Ocular Refractive Error
AbstractPURPOSE: Refractive errors, myopia, and hyperopia are common conditions requiring corrective lenses. The familial clustering of myopia has been well established. Several chromosomal regions have been linked to high myopia (12q, 17q, and 18q), to quantitative refraction among twins (3q, 4q, 8p, and 11p), and to families with moderate myopia (22q). This study examined the familial aggregation and pattern of inheritance of ocular refraction in an adult population, by using data from the Beaver Dam Eye Study. METHODS: Familial correlations were examined and segregation analysis was performed on the average refractive error measurements in the right and left eyes after adjustment for age, sex, and education. Analyses were based on 2138 individuals in 620 extended pedigrees with complete data on age, sex, education, and spherical equivalent. RESULTS: Substantial positive correlation was found between siblings (0.33), parents and offspring (0.17), and cousins (0.10) and lower correlation among avuncular pairs (0.08) after adjustment for age, sex, and years of education. The results of this segregation analysis do not support the involvement of a single major locus throughout the entire range of refractive error. However, models allowing for familial correlation, attributable in part to polygenic effects, provided a better fit to the observed data than models without a polygenic component, suggesting that several genes of modest effect may influence refractive error, possibly in conjunction with environmental factors. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the involvement of genetic factors in the etiology of refractive error and are consistent with reports of linkage to multiple regions of the genome.
Clinical and Experimental Optometry · 2014 · 48 citations · open access
Prevalence of refractive error, presbyopia and spectacle coverage in Kahama District, Tanzania: a rapid assessment of refractive error
AbstractBACKGROUND: In Tanzania, the prevalence of refractive error and presbyopia have not been comprehensively assessed, limiting appropriate planning and implementation of delivery of vision care. This study sought to determine the prevalence of refractive error and presbyopia, spectacle coverage and the barriers to uptake of refractive services in people aged 15 years and older in the Kahama district of Tanzania. METHODS: A cross-sectional community-based survey was conducted using 54 randomly selected clusters. Respondents 15 years and older were interviewed and underwent standardised clinical eye examinations. Uncorrected refractive error (URE) was defined as presenting vision worse than 6/12 that could be corrected to better than 6/12 using a pinhole. Spectacle coverage was defined as the proportion of need that was met (those that improved from unaided vision with their own spectacle correction). RESULTS: A total of 3,230 subjects (99.75 per cent of 3,240 eligible) participated in the study with 57.2 per cent males and the median age of participants was 35 years (inter-quartile range, 24 to 49). The prevalence of visual impairment was 10.4 per cent (95% CI 9.4 to 11.4) and was lower in those who had completed their primary school education (odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.72) and highest in subjects 40 years and older (OR 3.17, 95% CI: 2.14 to 4.70) and farmers (OR 8.57 95% CI: 2.27 to 32.43). Refractive error prevalence was 7.5 per cent (95% CI: 6.65 to 8.54) and this was highest in participants over 40 years (OR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.25) and in students (OR 3.64, 95% CI: 1.35 to 9.86). Prevalence of presbyopia was 46.5 per cent (773/1,663, 95% CI: 44.34 to 48.75). Spectacle coverage for refractive error and presbyopia was 1.69% (95% CI: 0 to 3.29) and 0.42% (95% CI: 0 to 1.26), respectively. CONCLUSION: Uncorrected refractive error is a public health challenge in the Kahama district and sustainable service delivery and health promotion efforts are needed.
Atropine Versus Cyclopentolate Plus Tropicamide in Esodeviations
AbstractBACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The correction of the total hypermetropic refractive error in the management of esodeviations is well accepted. The choice of the appropriate cycloplegic agent is still not settled. Despite evidence that atropine will more effectively uncover the total refractive error, cyclopentolate in combination with other cycloplegic agents continues to be recommended. This study evaluates the use of atropine compared with a combination of cyclopentolate and tropicamide and analyzes age, size of the refractive error, and size of the esodeviation as possible contributing variables in the response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of 74 patients who underwent refraction with atropine 1% on one occasion and a combination of 1% cyclopentolate and 1% tropicamide on another occasion were reviewed. The mean and range of refractive errors for each eye for each group were determined. Comparisons were made for groups depending on age, size of the refractive error, and size of the esodeviation. RESULTS: The amount of hypermetropia determined with atropine was significantly higher than the amount determined with the combination of cyclopentolate and tropicamide. This difference was significant for three age groups of three groups with increasing amounts of hypermetropia, and two groups with differing amounts of esodeviations. In addition, 11% of right eyes and 19% of left eyes showed 1.25 D or more of hypermetropia with atropine. CONCLUSION: Refraction with 1% atropine ointment yields a significantly larger amount of hypermetropia than does refraction with a combination of cyclopentolate and tropicamide. This difference is statistically significant regardless of age, amount of hypermetropia, or size of the esotropia.
Journal of Current Ophthalmology · 2018 · 4 citations · open access
The reduction of horizontal inequity in unmet refractive error: The Shahroud Eye Cohort Study, 2009–2014
AbstractPURPOSE: To measure Horizontal Inequity Index (HI) of unmet refractive error and its changes between 2009 and 2014 in Iran. METHODS: The data used in this study was taken from population-based study, Shahroud Eye Cohort Study. The number of participants analyzed in first (2009) and second phases of study (2014) were 5190 and 4737, respectively, and individuals between 40 and 64 years were included. The HI was determined by using the Concentration Index (C) based on the nonlinear (Probit) model, and C was decomposed to identify and quantify the contribution of each factor. RESULTS: After adjusting for need variables, the results demonstrated that the HI in unmet refractive need decreased from -0.288 (95% CI: 0.370, -0.206) in the 2009 to -0.132 (95% CI: 0.290, -0.028) in 2014. Decomposition of the C showed that level of education and economic status were the greatest contributors with shares of 26.2% and 17.9%, respectively, in reducing the amount of HI in unmet refractive error between 2009 and 2014. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated that unmet refractive error did not have an equal distribution among economic quintiles, despite the same need for correcting refractive errors. Reducing the amount of HI in unmet refractive error between 2009 and 2014 indicated an improvement in the unmet need in the five years period between two phases of study.
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.
