Scientific Platform, Narrative and Lexicon
Pubrica develops scientific platforms, narratives and lexicons for medical affairs teams, giving medical, market access and commercial functions one consistent, evidence-referenced source. A scientific platform is the set of statements your programme stands behind, each referenced to its evidence and graded by the strength of that evidence. The accompanying lexicon fixes terminology so that each concept is described consistently across markets. Our scientific narrative writers develop the platform and lexicon together and maintain both as new data arrive.
- Every statement carries its evidence and its strength, so readers can see what is supported and what is not yet established
- Unsupported claims documented, so affiliates and field teams know where the evidence ends
- A lexicon that fixes terminology, so that one mechanism is not described in different terms across markets
- Developed for medical affairs, as the scientific source from which the commercial story is drawn
- Maintained against new data, with a version history so that teams do not rely on statements superseded by later readouts
Statements with evidence and strengthIncluded
Unsupported claims identifiedIncluded
Lexicon across marketsIncluded
Version control and maintenanceIncluded
Statements ahead of the evidenceFlagged rather than drafted
Evidence → statements → graded → lexicon → one source
- Evidence behind every statement
- Strength stated, not implied
- Gaps named explicitly
- Terminology fixed across markets
- Versioned and maintained
Deliverables
Four Components of Every Scientific Platform
The platform is an internal reference document that allows anyone preparing downstream material to check each claim against its evidence.
From the platformThe mechanism provides sustained benefit in difficult-to-treat patients.In the pivotal trial, the between-group difference was maintained at 52 weeks (evidence: Study 301 primary publication, pre-specified secondary endpoint). Benefit in prior-treatment-failure patients is supported by a subgroup analysis only and is not powered.
From the limits sectionUnsupported claims often arise when the limits of the evidence have not been documented. Stating those limits gives teams a clear boundary.
From the lexiconDescribing the same endpoint in three ways across four markets can read as three different claims, and regulators in some markets treat it that way.
From the version recordEvery change is recorded, because a platform edited without a version history leaves teams unable to tell which version their materials were based on.
Samples are illustrative and anonymised. Hover over a sample to replay it.
Compliance and Standards
Scientific Platform Standards: GPP 2022, ICMJE and COPE
Permitted statements are limited by the evidence and by the approved label.
GPP 2022 (good publication practice)
The 2022 update, replacing GPP3. It covers company-sponsored research, including translational, biomarker and real-world studies, and extends to preprints, plain language summaries and social media. Professional medical writing support is legitimate, provided it is disclosed.
ICMJE Recommendations (authorship and disclosure)
Four criteria, all of which an author must meet. Contributors who fall short are acknowledged. Employment by the sponsor neither qualifies nor disqualifies anyone.
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
Guidance on authorship disputes, redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest and corrections, which journals apply when an integrity concern is raised.
Quality management (cert. H3CR9TCU20251212INDQM10N)
Certified quality management covering how each project is run, recorded and released.
Responsible Use of AI
Our Approach to AI Use in Scientific Platforms
Medical affairs work requires a clear distinction between scientific exchange and promotion, which regulators monitor. That judgement depends on context, jurisdiction and individual circumstances, so our specialists make it rather than an AI tool.
Why We Do Not Publish an AI Accuracy Figure
Accuracy figures for AI tools are usually reported by the companies that sell them.
Pubrica therefore does not quote a self-generated accuracy figure, as it would carry the same conflict of interest. Instead, we tell you which tool was used on your project, at which stage, and what a specialist changed afterwards.
Our Process
How Our Scientific Platform Process Works
We assemble the evidence before drafting, so that every statement is written from its supporting data.
Evidence assembled
We gather and appraise clinical, real-world, health economic and preclinical evidence and record the strength of each source.
Statements drafted
We write each scientific statement from the evidence, reference it and state the strength of support explicitly.
Limits and lexicon
We document what the evidence does not support and fix terminology with preferred terms and variants to avoid.
Review and maintain
We review the platform with your medical team, then version and update it as readouts, guidelines and competitor data become available.
Our Experts
Your Scientific Platform Team
Your project is handled by a named team of subject specialists who stay with it from scoping to delivery. Your project coordinator introduces each team member before work begins.
Reviews the scientific content for accuracy and confirms that each conclusion is supported by the evidence. Each expert is matched to your field of research.
Writes the content against the brief and the applicable code of practice, with every claim traceable to its reference.
Reviews the content for scientific accuracy, fair balance and compliance with the applicable code before it reaches your internal review.
Manages the timeline, keeps you informed at each stage and coordinates the team so that questions are answered and deadlines are met.
Packages
Scientific Platform Packages
Each package is quoted by scope, based on the volume of evidence and the number of functions and markets that use the platform.
Scientific platform
For a programme or an indication
Quoted per projectBased on evidence volume
Delivery By scope
- ✓Evidence assembled and appraised
- ✓Statements written with references
- ✓Strength of support stated per statement
- ✓Limits written down explicitly
- ✓Lexicon of preferred terms
- ✓Version control established
Developed with your medical team rather than for it, because a platform must be reviewed by the function that owns it.
Deliverables Request a quoteNarrative development
Narrative built from the platform
Quoted per projectBased on number of audiences
Delivery By scope
- ✓Core narrative from the platform statements
- ✓Consistent versions for each audience
- ✓Evidence carried through to each version
- ✓Slide-ready articulation
- ✓Guidance on what each audience may hear
Each audience version presents the same facts, so the narratives remain consistent with each other.
Deliverables Request a quoteMaintenance
Platform maintenance
Quoted per projectBased on update frequency
Delivery Scheduled
- ✓New readouts folded in
- ✓Statements revised where evidence moved
- ✓Superseded statements withdrawn
- ✓Competitor evidence tracked
- ✓Change history maintained
Scheduled maintenance prevents an outdated platform from remaining in circulation.
Deliverables Request a quoteSend us your current platform or message set and we will audit the statements against their sources at no cost, identifying any that the evidence no longer supports.
FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions About Scientific Platforms
If your question is not answered here, please ask an expert. No quote is required.
A value dossier is built for payers and organises evidence around value and affordability. A scientific platform is built for medical and organises evidence around what is scientifically supportable.
The two share evidence and should never contradict each other, which is a risk when separate teams build them independently.
Medical affairs owns it. It is a scientific document, and commercial ownership risks statements moving ahead of the evidence.
Commercial teams draw on the platform, and keeping that direction of the relationship is what keeps it credible.
Inconsistent terminology leads to inconsistent claims. Four markets using four names for one mechanism produce four slightly different claims, none of them intended.
A lexicon also supports translation, because a term without a fixed equivalent is translated differently by each translator.
It goes in with its status marked as data on file or unpublished, so anyone using it knows they cannot cite a source that exists publicly.
Statements presented as established before the supporting data are published are the most common problem we find when reviewing existing platforms.
Related services
Related Medical Affairs and Publication Services
The scientific platform is the source document for the related services below.
1FIELD AND PAYER MATERIALSdownstream
MSL and field medicalGuidance for field medical communication. Global value dossierThe payer-facing evidence document.2PROGRAMME PLANNINGplanning
Publication planningWhat will be published, and when. Medical affairs strategyObjectives of the medical affairs function.3EVIDENCE SYNTHESISevidence base
Systematic reviewSystematic assembly of the evidence. Payer evidence reviewComparisons and effect sizes.Request a Free Audit of Your Scientific Platform Statements
We identify the statements that your current evidence no longer supports, which is difficult to assess objectively in your own document.