FOR MEDICAL AFFAIRS
Clinical training that holds up to the audience reading it.
In medical affairs, the cost of getting it wrong is not a bad evaluation. It is a piece of training that fails its audience under scrutiny — misstates the science, drifts from compliance, or erodes the scientific credibility that took years to build. The teams who carry this work need partners who understand what is actually at stake, and who do not treat clinical content as commercial content with harder words.
HOW WE WORK IN CLINICAL CONTEXTS
We bring five dimensions to the work — in this order.
Scientific rigor, first. We operate as domain-fluent peers to the teams we work with — we know the science, the workflows, and the regulatory texture, and we expect the partnership to be peer-level on both sides.
Then instructional strategy: how the content actually teaches, retrieves, and embeds. Then creative imagination, technical capability, and user-centeredness — each in service of the science, never at its expense.
The Calibrated Method runs the same in clinical work as in any other engagement. What changes is the discipline around scientific accuracy: rigor is the floor of clinical work, not the ceiling.
Case
Roche Diagnostics
Pathology training
Three years, sole-source
The pathologist's read is the gate.
Most of our work for Roche teaches pathologists to read the biomarker — on a whole slide image — that serves as the companion diagnostic for a new therapeutic option. The pathologist quantifies the amount of the biomarker present in the tumor and determines whether it meets the threshold required for treatment eligibility.
For a recent biomarker — a new companion diagnostic in oncology — we built training that guided pathologists through the disease context, the biomarker biology, the required quantitative threshold, and a structured set of cases evaluated against that threshold. New biomarkers are the hard case: less established interpretive norms, fewer reference reads, pattern recognition that pathologists have to build from scratch.
We have done this kind of work for Roche, biomarker after biomarker, for three years — sole-source the entire time, repeatedly re-evaluated by the kind of PhD buyers who do not extend trust loosely.
Case
AbbVie
Global medical affairs
Ongoing
A tool that the global team called the most-used resource in their ecosystem.
Our work with AbbVie’s medical affairs team is in clinical training. The global team told us, as we were starting our next project together, that a Competitive Landscape Tool we built at global scale across multiple country teams had become the most-used resource in their learning ecosystem. Field users actually reach for it — the only kind of adoption that matters. The relationship continues; we are starting another project with AbbVie now.
For a recent biomarker — a new companion diagnostic in oncology — we built training that guided pathologists through the disease context, the biomarker biology, the required quantitative threshold, and a structured set of cases evaluated against that threshold. New biomarkers are the hard case: less established interpretive norms, fewer reference reads, pattern recognition that pathologists have to build from scratch.
We have done this kind of work for Roche, biomarker after biomarker, for three years — sole-source the entire time, repeatedly re-evaluated by the kind of PhD buyers who do not extend trust loosely.
If this is the kind of work you are trying to do, we would be glad to talk.
CONTACT
Start a conversation.
We work best with teams who already have a sense of what is not working and what they want to change. If that is where you are, send us a note. Tell us roughly what you are facing; we will read it, and one of the principals will reply.
A principal reads everything that comes in here and replies within two working days. If the fit feels right, the next step is a conversation — not a sales call.