I think at this point not putting "in mice" in an article title like this is just dishonesty.
Even if there were human volunteers willing to test on themselves various cocktails of chemicals, such a study would take many centuries.
Also on monkeys any study would take much too long.
So until aging in mice is well understood, any tests on monkeys or humans are pointless.
It is unlikely that the aging mechanisms differ in an essential way between mice and humans. If the aging in mice were understood, finding how it functions in humans would need far less work than for discovering how it functions in mice.
The lifespan of humans is less than twice that of our closest relatives, and probably there is no coincidence in the fact that about the same ratio exists between the maturity age of humans and that of apes.
Aging in humans does not seem to have any qualitative difference, it just happens slower, like also the maturity.
Besides, the apes in general age in an unusual way. All take too long to mature compared to their lifespan, and all have too long a lifespan compared to their size (the mammals have a rough correlation between lifespan and size). Yes, we are merely at the extreme of that weirdness, not in a new category of weirdness. But it still means we are different from mice in some way.
[citation needed]
Aging has appeared hundreds of millions of years ago in the ancestors of all multicellular animals and it manifests in the same way in most of them.
There is no known reason for aging in a way to be replaced by aging in some other way, like e.g. respiration through gills may be replaced by respiration through lungs, especially when we discuss some closely related mammals which have not diverged significantly in their way of life.
There are a few animal groups where more significant alterations in aging appears to have occurred, e.g. which have an unusually long lifespan, but whatever has changed seems to be restricted to those small groups.
There are no great divisions between animals where you could say that one group has a modified aging, like they might have a modified digestive system, enabling them to use a different food.
So until a contrary proof, the most plausible supposition is that aging happens in the same way in all multicellular animals, with minor differences, caused e.g. by more efficient cellular repair mechanisms in some of them, or by a "programmed death", i.e. suicide, which happens in many animals after reproduction, or in some colonial animals before a season when there will not be food for all of them.
A result in yeast might not apply at all. a result in fish might be something worth investigating. A result in mice has a good likelihood of applying to humans. A money study would be a close match.
But yeah, it seems 100% deliberate because most people wouldn't probably care after reading the title. It's academic clickbait techniques.