Despite being on nature.com, the journal this is in ("Translational Psychiatry") is not a prestigious one; in fact, it's an online-only journal and you have to

Despite being on nature.com, the journal this is in ("Translational Psychiatry") is not a prestigious one; in fact, it's an online-only journal and you have to pay to get your article published in it. It is suspicious that they couldn't find a better journal to publish such an amazing result in, so the science is probably bad. The statistical significance of p=0.01 is unimpressive. Honestly, as non-scientists we should just ignore new papers like these. If it's really important, first it'll be published in an excellent journal, then it'll be replicated successfully, then there'll be meta-analyses that confirm how reliable the technique is, and it'll get cited and built upon a bunch of times, and then it'll actually be something that we should consider as anything other than "probably wrong". Which is what it is right now.