As I understand it, it's a beta test at best. It's mostly for scientists to prove it's safe ethical and worth the money of moving forward to test on humans, more than evidence of the underlining hypothesis. It is to be taken with a grain of salt. If it's working for you now keep doing it, if you're not doing it don't feel pressured to do it, just keep an eye out.

Usually that's what I hear from the bio/fitness PHDs breaking down studies on nutrition/drug effects for fitness/nutrition.

"Overall, mice and humans share virtually the same set of genes. Almost every gene found in one species so far has been found in a closely related form in the other. Of the approximately 4,000 genes that have been studied, less than 10 are found in one species but not in the other." https://www.genome.gov/10001345/importance-of-mouse-genome

The conclusion of the paper is the title. Extrapolating out from it to conclusions about humans should be regarded as just that, an extrapolation until tested otherwise.

I think this is obviously a both yes and no answer.

Yes in that we are both mammals, and we have similar bodies given our common ancestors.

No in that even different humans have different responses to diets, so why should mammalian cousins be enlightening on medical issues.

Science is complicated and everything is a question of scope and ability to test. It’s certainly used information, but should probably be replicated and then experimented with by humans.

no, of course not, we've been using them in experiments just for shits and giggles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_mouse#Limitations