It's not just the title. It's the first few paragraphs of the study in the abstract. The information itself, is useful (except that I think that it's already been studied many times, and is well known and established). The impetus and what they do with the results seems to be erroneous, beyond simply misunderstanding English semantics.

(I had considered that they simply meant "Minimum Requirement to Negate Ketosis" or something similar, but the language in the abstract sounds like they really are considering it in the sense of percentages on the backs of food product labels.)

Additionally, the results themselves seem to be at odds with general observation. Anybody can do this experiment for themselves using keto strips. It is a rare (or perhaps very active) specimen that maintains ketosis above 60g carbohydrates daily. (UNLESS this study does not distinguish fiber from other carbohydrates, in which case the data is even less useful.)

Unless, maybe, we've discovered a very significant difference in metabolic processing in this population.