Personally I expect at least 40% of the science reported in these abstracts to be somehow flawed.

Eurekalert.org reports the raw press releases same day with zero editing or fact checking

https://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/?kw=104&start=30

Medicalxpress.com condenses the length of the raw press releases about a day later, and decides which ones to ignore.

MedicalNewsToday.com delays publishing for 4-5 days and has (lowly) paid “fact checkers”

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/

msnbc and cnn medical news,
well what can I say?
Nearly always is a form of “click-bait.”

The “historian of science” Gary Taubes, mentioned in a previous post,
claims to read completely every science paper mentioned in his books
and telephones original paper authors with questions for any issue he does not understand.