Ironically, that title itself hypes the content of the perspective piece that follows. It does to not refute any finding in the PNAS paper. They simply question

Ironically, that title itself hypes the content of the perspective piece that follows. It does to not refute any finding in the PNAS paper. They simply question whether the observed effect on LH, which wasn't disputed, is clinically relevant or should result in modification of clinical recommendation, for which further work is needed. >Despite the excellent quality of the work, the main point to emphasize is the confusion that has arisen concerning the study conclusions versus the real-world relevance and application of its results.