It seems to me that there are confounders here that can't easily be disentangled. People who radically accelerate are likely to be those who are far outliers in a number of dimensions of personality, not only intelligence. They are those who simply can't tolerate the lack of inputs. Forcing them to endure it does not make it less intolerable, it just tortures them.
I think that when such people get into the work force, they almost certainly will still be unhappy in an environment where they don't have intellectual peers or where they are under the authority of people who are less competent and who can't grasp what they are saying or understand its importance. I speak from experience. My parents had the opportunity to radically accelerate me, and refused to do so. If I hadn't managed to finagle a situation where I could just sign myself out of my high school and go to the local college library, I would have left school just to escape. My experience in the work force has been one of unending frustration. The only work situations where I have not come home ranting and raving at day's end have been ones where either I was the ultimate decision maker or where I did not have to answer to people who were not at my intellectual level.
I think that in most fields there is an optimal level of giftedness, where an individual's ideas might be ahead of or different from the rest of the group, but not so different that the group can't comprehend them once they are explained properly, and where the gifted individual is close enough in cognitive functioning to the rest of the group that he or she can understand what the rest of the group is missing and why and find a way to bridge the gap. If the gap is too large, then everyone in the situation is frustrated.
Modern science is collaborative, and modern scientists have to do a fair amount of persuading others to go along with their ideas. I am not at all surprised to hear that those on the "Nobel track" are not the people who radically accelerated as children.
