The tiny number of participants, plus the use of EEG to make giant claims about function, and the claims made all make me super skeptical of the results. This shouldn't be published results - at best this should generate a hypothesis.

It's somewhat comparable to using a handheld magnifying glass on petri dishes and making broad claims about virus morphology. EEG is great, but I'm not sure I buy the methodology in this case. You need a huge N and much better experimental design and absolutely zero hype unless or until you show results with scientific rigor.

This sort of clickbait almost makes me view this type of research as a flavor of pseudo-science. The framing is misleading at best, but the full throated embrace of the clickbait and hype machine is awful.

It's funding bait, narrative manipulation, etc, and it'll either be part of something replicated and justified with much better experiments, or it'll just fade away into oblivion, with no repercussions for any involved should the outcome not actually benefit anyone or anything. There's not even a negative incentive, mGlu5 and "imbalance" claims have been made for decades, and they keep circling the questions but don't ever seem to actually "do" real science.