01
Hospitals: evaluate fit with clinical services
The target of Multi-site Clinical Validation in at least five hospitals raises questions about differences in users, equipment, and participant populations. Interested hospitals can begin with the service context to evaluate, clinical responsibility, and comparison with clinician reference assessment.
Participation in evaluation is not confirmation that the system is ready for every group. The 27.3% fair LV limitation in the Rayong summary belongs in the discussion, together with unsuitable clips and the clinician’s decision-making role.
Source: EasyEF project brief, 22 June 2026; CNF 2026, pp. 55–60
02
Researchers: address questions the evidence leaves open
Existing work supports further investigation of the intermediate category and evaluation on data from other sites. CNF page 60 also proposes new questions involving valves, the pericardium, and other abnormalities. These require datasets and evaluation criteria separate from the original LV function task.
Before starting, collaborators should agree outcome definitions, reference labeling, data partitioning, and subgroup reporting. More data is a research resource, not evidence of improved accuracy until evaluated.
Source: 2024 paper, pp. 128, 131–132; CNF 2026, p. 60
03
Technology partners: build traceable integration
The sources propose both handheld ultrasound integration and image acquisition from existing machines. Collaboration can address input quality, API integration, report presentation, and model-version traceability so that research and clinical teams can interpret results in the same context.
A technically successful integration does not establish clinical accuracy for that acquisition route. A changed device or recording method needs a defined evaluation before earlier results are applied to it.
Source: CNF 2026, pp. 43, 46–47; GPO 2026, pp. 20–23; EasyEF project brief, 22 June 2026
04
Supporters: focus on verifiable deliverables
The 12-month plan includes platform components, a Clinical Validation report, user guidance, User Acceptance evaluation, and SaMD-readiness documentation. Supporters can begin by identifying the deliverable they wish to enable, how progress will be tracked, and the work’s limitations.
The TRL 7 to TRL 9 goal is a development framework, not a guarantee of authorization timing or patient outcomes. Milestones based on documentation and evaluation results connect support to evidence actually produced.
Source: EasyEF project brief, 22 June 2026; GPO 2026, pp. 8–11
05
Start a conversation
Contact LINE mae.t.ace or call 0615656599 with an introduction to your organization, service context or research question, and the type of collaboration you have in mind. This overview is sufficient to begin a discussion and agree appropriate next steps.
Do not send patient videos or identifying documents through public contact channels to begin the discussion. Real-data work first requires agreement on authorization, governance, and transfer arrangements. This website provides project information and does not offer patient uploads or AI processing.
Source: CNF 2026, p. 60; EasyEF project brief, 22 June 2026; owner-approved public contact, 15 September 2026
SOURCE NOTES
Sources for this page
- ข้อเสนอโครงการ EasyEF ฉบับ 22 มิถุนายน 2569: ขอบเขตและแผนงาน / EasyEF project brief, 22 June 2026: scope and planned work
- บทความวิจัยปี 2567 / 2024 original article — J Prapokklao Hosp Clin Med Educat Center 41(2):123–132 ↗
- บทคัดย่อการศึกษาระยอง ไทย–อังกฤษ หน้า 1–3 / Rayong study abstract, Thai and English, pp. 1–3; publication and peer-review status not verified / ยังไม่ยืนยันสถานะตีพิมพ์และการทบทวนโดยผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิ
- เอกสารนำเสนอ / Presentation: EasyEF Lunch Symposium, CNF 17th, 26 March 2026 — หน้า / pp. 43, 46–47, 55–60
- เอกสารนำเสนอ / Presentation: EasyEF AI Echo, GPO, 4 February 2026 — หน้า / pp. 8–11, 20–23
Presentations reflect information at the time they were prepared. Explore context and evidence status in the resource library.
Explore the source library →