This is kind of weak research for a few reasons. 112 subjects seems like "alot" but really you need to do this in the thousands to have a better statistical significance. 4 years is way too short of a study to give longevity results. Also, and this might just be the majority of people that they pulled from, why are they all of Indian-Asian descent? You need a mixed race of hair transplant patients. Maybe one ethnicity has better or poorer results, or even where they got their hair transplant from. I dont know who reviewed the papers that get published but this one was very weak.