So you disagree with articles like <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.slate.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;life&#x2F;family&#x2F;2014&#x2F;02&#x2F;mimo_and_other_smart_baby_monitors_don_t_protect_from_sids_so_what_are_they.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.slate.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;life&#x2F;family&#x2F;2014&#x2F;02&#x2F;mimo_and_o...</a> &quot;Selling Fear: Smart monitors cannot protect babies from SIDS, so what are they for?&quot; Or the Policy Statement at <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pediatrics.aappublications.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;128&#x2F;5&#x2F;1030.full.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pediatrics.aappublications.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;128&#x2F;5&#x2F;1030.ful...</a> which says:<p>&gt; Do not use home cardiorespiratory monitors as a strategy to reduce the risk of SIDS—Although cardiorespiratory monitors can be used at home to detect apnea, bradycardia, and, when pulse oximetry is used, decreases in oxyhemoglobin saturation, there is no evidence that use of such devices decreases the incidence of SIDS.84,–,87 They might be of value for selected infants but should not be used routinely. There is also no evidence that routine in-hospital cardiorespiratory monitoring before discharge from the hospital can identify newborn infants at risk of SIDS.<p>When you say &quot;probably be enhanced&quot;, was that speaking only from optimism in technology, or did it have some other basis?