Evaluating Metrics Applied to the Medical Science Liaison (MSL) Role: A Survey-Based Study of Canadian MSL Leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Metrics utilized within the Medical Science Liaison (MSL) role are plentiful and traditionally quantitative. We sought to understand the current use and value of metrics applied to the MSL role, including the use of qualitative metrics. METHODS: We developed a list of 70 MSL leaders working in Canada, spanning 29 companies. Invitations were emailed Jun 16, 2020 and the 25-question online survey was open for 3 weeks. Questions were designed to assess demographics as well as how and why metrics are applied to the MSL role. Data analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Responses were received from 44 leaders (63%). Of the 42 eligible, 45% had ≤ 2 years of experience as MSL leaders and 86% supported specialty care products over many phases of the product lifecycle. A majority (69%) agreed or strongly agreed that metrics are critical to understanding whether an MSL is delivering value, and 98% had used metrics in the past year. The most common reason to use metrics was 'to show value/impact of MSLs to leadership' (66%). The most frequently used metric was 'number of health-care professional (HCP) interactions', despite this being seen as having moderate value. Quantitative metrics were used more often than qualitative, although qualitative were more often highly valued. CONCLUSION: The data collected show a lack of agreement between the frequency of use for some metrics and their value in demonstrating the contribution of an MSL. Overall, MSL leaders in our study felt qualitative metrics were a better means of showing the true impact of MSLs.
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 | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".