Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background/Objectives: Distinct responses to optic-nerve injury motivate multidimensional, state-dependent control rather than a universal regeneration score. We tested whether public perturbational transcriptomes could define interpretable states and support computational policy compression. Methods: Five public mouse datasets were analyzed using six prespecified biological modules. Zero-preserving transformed treatment–control effects defined nine perturbation anchors. A 16-region engineering simulator was used to retrain a gradient-boosting student and select an explicit decision tree in disjoint simulated episode cohorts. Results: Longitudinal treatment-response correlations were 0.177–0.406, while same-time PTEN-derived interventions remained non-identical (pairwise Spearman rho 0.670–0.787). A newly trained student attained 85.67% action-label accuracy and macro-F1 0.598. A depth-3 tree (eight leaves, six features) retained 98.59% and 98.62% of the recalibrated MPC objective in 120 independent Standard and 120 OOD episodes, with failure-rate differences of +3.33 and +0.83 percentage points. The 95% bootstrap interval for the Standard failure increase exceeded the five-percentage-point selection limit. Greedy one-step control performed similarly to or slightly better than the approximate MPC. Additional post-review OOD simulations revealed sensitivity to episode sampling and alternative engineering dynamics, limiting the generalizability of the initial benchmark estimates. Conclusions: BioEdge-Rx demonstrates computational compression of a state-dependent policy within an assumed simulator. It does not establish causal treatment transitions, biological efficacy, sensor-level realizability, or superiority of multistep planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buga et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: