01

Evidence map

The two datasets answer questions in different settings. The 2024 work evaluates classification of held-out clips; Rayong compares results with clinician assessment in a clinical-practice cohort. Presenting them together shows the development path without treating them as one study.

Source: 2024 paper, pp. 123–124; Rayong abstract, pp. 1–3; CNF 2026, pp. 55–59

EvidenceUnit and sizeOverall resultMaterial limitation
2024 publication184 test clips; 739 training clips177/184 = 96.2%Mildly Reduced EF: 12/17 ≈ 71%
Rayong study summary218 participants93.6%fair LV: 27.3%; peer review not verified
Multisite evaluation planTarget of at least five hospitalsNo completed result reportedPlanned in the project brief

02

2024: a published foundation

The article in the Journal of Prapokklao Hospital Clinical Medical Education Center, volume 41, issue 2, pages 123–132, describes smartphone-recorded parasternal long-axis video. It includes 923 usable clips: 739 for training and 184 for testing.

The 96.2% figure concerns three-category classification against clinician reference assessment. It is not a trial result demonstrating lower mortality or replacement of standard examination. Data selection and limitations should be read alongside the abstract.

Source: 2024 paper, pp. 123–132

03

Rayong: evidence from a clinical workflow

The Rayong abstract describes a retrospective study of 218 participants. The slides date it to December 2025–January 2026, with 76 pre-chemotherapy assessments and 142 general LV function assessments. This adds workflow evidence in a setting different from a clip split used for model development.

The available sources are an abstract and the CNF slides, rather than a full article with verified review status. Results are therefore presented as reported by the study team, with the 27.3% fair LV limitation included whenever performance is summarized.

Source: Rayong abstract, pp. 1–3; CNF 2026, pp. 54–59

04

Why the intermediate category matters

Overall accuracy reflects both the number of examples and performance within each category. A large category can produce a strong overall result while another remains weak. The 2024 study reports only 12 correct classifications among 17 Mildly Reduced EF clips, and Rayong reports 27.3% for fair LV.

The category labels and evaluation settings differ, so the two percentages should not be treated as a direct trend measurement. What both sources support is the need for close examination of the intermediate category.

Source: 2024 paper, pp. 130–132; CNF 2026, p. 59

05

Questions for the next evaluation

Planned Multi-site Clinical Validation in at least five hospitals is intended to assess how results vary across personnel, equipment, and participant populations. The brief also includes User Acceptance and Deployment Feasibility work to examine readiness beyond classification percentages.

Future evidence should report unusable clips, subgroup results, system versions, and reference-assessment procedures. These explain the conditions behind the headline result without assuming that adding sites will automatically improve performance.

Source: 2024 paper, p. 132; EasyEF project brief, 22 June 2026

SOURCE NOTES

Sources for this page

  1. บทความวิจัยปี 2567 / 2024 original article — J Prapokklao Hosp Clin Med Educat Center 41(2):123–132 ↗
  2. บทคัดย่อการศึกษาระยอง ไทย–อังกฤษ หน้า 1–3 / Rayong study abstract, Thai and English, pp. 1–3; publication and peer-review status not verified / ยังไม่ยืนยันสถานะตีพิมพ์และการทบทวนโดยผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิ
  3. เอกสารนำเสนอ / Presentation: EasyEF Lunch Symposium, CNF 17th, 26 March 2026 — หน้า / pp. 54–59
  4. ข้อเสนอโครงการ EasyEF ฉบับ 22 มิถุนายน 2569: ขอบเขตและแผนงาน / EasyEF project brief, 22 June 2026: scope and planned work

Presentations reflect information at the time they were prepared. Explore context and evidence status in the resource library.

Explore the source library →