ANALYSIS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES IN PHARMACEUTICAL PROMOTION GLOBALLY: TOWARDS INTERNATIONALLY DEVELOPING PRACTICALLY-ORIENTED GUIDELINES FOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. Pharmaceutical industry is transnational and globally important. Many pharmaceutical companies operate their business in multinational and international forms in different countries. Diverse researches from different countries indicated and confirmed marketing promotion importance in pharmaceutical field. Therefore, marketing promotion and its effects are a very important issue that should be globally investigated in real life and evidence context. We oriented our research according to these scientific and practical values. Methodology . We reviewed pharmaceutical marketing promotion researches from more than 25 different countries, e.g., USA, Canada, Italy, France, Russia, India, Egypt and Syria where we employed our knowledge of three widely spread languages, i.e., English, Russian and Arabic. Such language variation supports us with large and variable amount of scientific knowledge, deep understanding and ability of analysis. Some studies investigated average response to pharmaceutical marketing promotion and few studies took into consideration heterogeneity in their effects with respect to advertising medium or drug characteristics. Originality . We investigated empirical evidences of pharmaceutical marketing promotion that can be directed to either consumer or healthcare professionals. Findings. We extracted, gathered and associated information of pharmaceutical promotion globally which oriented us to several evidence and practical facts with regard to employing promotion tools in different definite situations pertinent to main directions; their welfare and health enhancing effects and adverse effects. Practical Implications- Consequently, we developed practically-oriented guidelines for companies concerning pharmaceutical promotion globally ate the end of this paper.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.205 | 0.312 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".