The statistical methods outlined in this paper are not fit for purpose. The author's narrative seems to suggest non-significant differences and statistical similarities are interchangeable. They are not. The research question seems to suggest the research team are investigating whether the PneumoRator can identify BrPD and compared this with a clinician assessment. If we are to accept a clinician assessment of BrPD as the current standard, statistical tests should measure accuracy and correlation between the two assessment methods. Bland-Altman analysis and inter-rater reliability tests are required. Statistical similarity/equivalence is not required for this study but would require a two-one-sided test of differences (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5502906/). "PneumoRator captures breathing events that align with the clinician observation of RR and air hunger" is an incorrect interpretation of the results. The paper has showed no-significant differences not that these observations interchangeable.