One advantage they don't discuss is perhaps lack of toxicity. I used to do Carpentry during summer break and sometimes we'd burn scraps for heat. I was advised not to throw treated lumber into the pile as it's toxic so this would be a good step in the right direction towards less toxins introduced into homes and groundwater.
The article is credited "by Georgia Institute of Technology", so it is a press release. This is just early research, but presumably the problems of toxicity are what inspired the study in the first place. But, they can't make any claims yet, because lawyers. And cost would be a huge factor, unless regulation were involved. There is a potential public good in reducing toxins in the environment. But what about their idea of using it for framing lumber? Nobody uses pressure treated for framing today, do they? It would help insulate, they say, but there's no way that would make any sense unless the cost were much lower than today's treated lumber, which... well it's just an early research project.
Why are all of the comparisons to untreated lumber? Shouldn’t they have tested against pressure-treated lumber too to see how well it performs against that?