There's a fairly simple way to validate or invalidate the OP study for one's self: try it out. That is, if one has already been lifting regularly and can thus see any difference. True, it won't be scientific, but who cares?

I started training concurrently when I used a gym spin class. The classes were hard and taught by racers. My legs were rather jello-y after but I was already at the gym, so I tried lifting after the class. To my shock, the lifting went fine. No performance difference. Since I only have riding and rest days, the concurrent training came naturally and I've done it ever since. I've had pretty decent strength gains, even at 70, but interestingly not much size gain. That could be just my physiology or an effect of the endurance training, but it's a very good thing for a cyclist. Strength gains with no weight penalty is our dream!

My pre-lift workouts are usually an hour on the rollers, doing either recovery, steady-state endurance (VT1), speed work, short intervals, or one-legged pedaling. Lifting results were the same for all, as far as I could tell. I told myself it worked because lifting uses different energy systems, which might even have something to do with it. One thing I did notice was that after cycling, I had to have a bottle of sports drink at the gym to get good results, even though I didn't need anything while cycling. Otherwise my blood sugar dropped out. Which again could be just me, or some more universal effect.

Downside of concurrent training: one has to add in the training effect of lifting. I see a TSS of 30-40 for my in-season short lifting program.