To echo what gwern said, AFAIK actuaries are only useful insofar as there’s a large data set for them to work with. Often when evaluating evidence, you need to evaluate the merits of a bunch of studies and aggregate them along with any non-scientific evidence (e.g. not published in peer reviewed journals, not statistical, etc.) you may have, and this isn’t what actuaries do. What you need is a statistician with specialist knowledge in the field(s) you’re interested in. Or a specialist with some knowledge of statistics. These people are often called scientists.
To echo what gwern said, AFAIK actuaries are only useful insofar as there’s a large data set for them to work with. Often when evaluating evidence, you need to evaluate the merits of a bunch of studies and aggregate them along with any non-scientific evidence (e.g. not published in peer reviewed journals, not statistical, etc.) you may have, and this isn’t what actuaries do. What you need is a statistician with specialist knowledge in the field(s) you’re interested in. Or a specialist with some knowledge of statistics. These people are often called scientists.