Along with the high sustained dosage others have mentioned the small sample size (14 in the experimental group) should be noted.
The "Unreliable Small-Sample" Misconception
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/11/9/656465/-
> My point here is that arguing that the sample is inaccurate simply because of how large or small it is is not correct. The size of the sample actually makes very little difference in how applicable the results are to the population. It simply makes the range of possible results smaller as the size of the sample increases.
I've noticed a trend on reddit and HN where commenters will point out small sample sizes, often with the direct or indirect implication that this makes the study mostly invalid. I believe that's false - studies with small sample sizes can be very valid. The smaller the sample size the larger the effect size needs to be for it to be a statistically significant result, but a small sample size by itself isn't bad.
And I think that the internet would be able to better appreciate research if more people were aware of the small sample size misconception.