Also, the other definition in question is what the UCLA PR person means by "repairing brain damage". As far as I can tell from the paper - the "drug" part was using some neurotransmitter blockers on brain cells on a Petri dish to see if they could change gene expression or oscillatory firing patterns matching recordings in mice undergoing "physical therapy". They did not actually test to see if the stuff grew new brain cells or dendritic connections.
Does that mean it will neccesarily work? No, of course not. But its still exciting to see progress being made.
Mice are used only partly because they share a considerable amount of DNA with us. But they're mostly used because they're cheap. Both in financial and ethical costs.
They live for about two years, and breed in about three months. They are disposable. Over 100 million are killed each year in various labs across the country.
And for all of this, only about 5% of medicine that show positive animal results make it to market in some fashion. So basically, the best thing we can say about a mouse-tested drug is that "this most likely won't make things worse". But that's like a low bar.
I think savvy universities want savvy PIs are savvy enough to realize that the point of these is to boost measurable visibility like citation count and h-index, so the headline of a news release boosting the article doesn't matter. They can always blame a copy editor for the headlines. It could read "world peace solved with moon juice." The provost would only care if it generated negative feedback. So it's the PR department's job to juice it as much as possible without getting blowback.
Sounds truly amazing, I have known two people who had severe strokes - one's PT was contingent on triaging resources to whoever was likely to recover more, another simply hated PT and speech therapy and often refused to participate or do the exercises. Even if it didn't help recovery a medicine like this would have reduced the stress of everyone involved.