The study itself is fine for what it is. It gives some specific numbers in the abstract (where that 10% is listed), and it feels like the article writer took that and ran. If you look closer at it though, it is not meant to be a definitive paper. It is meant to be a here’s how we can look deeper using these methods. I think science journalism often leaves out that part of science. The, “we have an idea, we need to publish it to get other people to see and help refine it” part is not glamorous, and often inconclusive, but also very important.