If men were more susceptible in a statistically significant way they would have called it out at least as a "further research needed" because it opens the door for future resource allocation. If women were more susceptible in a statistically significant way they wouldn't have framed the discussion so negatively in terms of CEOs and world leaders but instead framed it as a health issue because doing anything else in most academic settings is being needlessly reckless and unprofessional.

Since there's no mention whatsoever I'm betting there was no meaningful difference or the test group wasn't big enough to investigate the possibility of said difference.