Welp, clearly you didn't take the lesson to heart. Arguments from authority don't always make a claim of truth, though most do.
What you don't seem to understand is that an appeal to authority fallacy says nothing about the veracity or falsity of the underlying assertion. The fallacy is in the use of a statement from authority towards that end in a logical argument. As such, it's a fallacy to accept the imprimatur of the authority as necessarily "relevant". It might be relevant, it might not. But taking the word of the authority in the absence of the actual proof of its relevancy is a fallacy, pure and simple.
And please not that you didn't just say "relevant". You claimed that the study was "evidence":
As I pointed out, it's a fallacy to attribute evidentiary value to the abstract by itself, without access to the underlying data and methodology.
- - - Updated - - -
You're acting like what you posted contradicts my explanation of how the fallacy was applied in this situation. Hilarious indeed.
What's ironic is that I already had a copy of that wikipedia page open on another tab before you even linked it. I know exactly what an appeal to authority fallacy is, thanks.