Learn about the MRCT Center’s Clinical Research Glossary, a collaboratively developed plain language resource designed to enhance understanding of clinical research terminology. Discover how you can participate in the annual Public Review—an essential step toward making these terms a CDISC global standard. Your involvement ensures the glossary remains accurate, inclusive, and effective for informed decision-making in clinical research. Now open through July 5.
Key Topics:
The terms and definitions going through Public Review
Why your voice matters in Public Review
How to easily participate and submit feedback
The role of Public Review in shaping global clinical research standards
Public Review is a Critical Part of the Clinical Research Glossary process.
Part of being a CDISC global plain language standard means all new terms and definitions, plus change requests we received throughout the year, go through a public review process.
Public Review of the Clinical Research Glossary happens every June.
After definitions are developed by the Clinical Research Glossary team, Public Review ensures the definitions get an extra review by people who were not involved in the project. This helps us be more confident that the definitions are clear and easy to understand.
Send us your feedback using the MRCT Center Public Review process.
The MRCT Center’s process uses a simple survey to collect feedback.
This process will not require reviewers to create an account, but we do ask for name, organization and email address. Collecting this information allows us to validate the entry and follow-up with each person to let them know how the comment was addressed.
You can send us feedback on already posted definitions all year round and suggest new words for us to consider whenever you want. Click here to contact us.
The CDISC Public Review process is also an option if you know how to use JIRA
This works great if you already have a CDISC login and are familiar with the process. Individuals will need to create accounts to provide comments via JIRA.
CDISC has kindly provided video instructions here.
This resource offers institutional review boards (IRBs) and other oversight entities a structured, practical approach to evaluating protocols that involve artificial intelligence in research with human participants. The framework addresses emerging ethical and regulatory challenges specific to AI—such as algorithmic bias, adaptive learning, data identifiability, and the need for human oversight—while aligning with foundational ethical principles and applicable U.S. regulations. Through tools including a decision tree for regulatory applicability, developmental stage-specific review guidance, and targeted ethical considerations, the framework supports consistent, thorough review processes that protect participants and promote the responsible use of AI in clinical research.
The MRCT Center Clinical Research Glossary is more than a reference—it’s a tool for clarity, connection, and accessibility across the clinical research ecosystem. Organizations from patient advocacy groups to health systems, academic journals, and recruitment platforms are integrating the glossary to meet the distinct needs of their audiences.
Whether embedded in health literacy trainings, linked within patient education portals, or aligned with technical terminology in scholarly publications, these five implementation stories demonstrate the glossary’s real-world utility in empowering patients, caregivers, professionals, and the public to engage with research using a shared, plain language vocabulary.
In the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Barbara Bierer and co-authors Daniel Albert-Rozenberg, David Peloquin, Joseph Liss, and Erika Hanson published “Assessing Federal Policies to Reduce Economic Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment.” The article examines how the risk of losing access to means-tested programs—such as Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—can deter low-income Americans from participating in clinical trials. This barrier disproportionately impacts racial and ethnic minority groups, people with disabilities, elderly individuals, and rural populations, hindering efforts to achieve representative enrollment. The authors recommend that Congress exclude clinical trial payments from gross income and expand the participant compensation exclusions for means-tested programs established under the Ensuring Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2015.
Albert-Rozenberg D, Peloquin D, Liss J, Hanson E, Bierer BE. Assessing Federal Policies to Reduce Economic Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Published online 2025:1-10. doi:10.1017/jme.2025.61
This meeting was presented to the Bioethics Collaborative. The Bioethics Collaborative is a forum to propose, share, and discuss ethical challenges in multi-national clinical trials. Meetings convene individuals from academia, industry, patient/participant groups, ethics committees, government, and others.
Abstract:The September 2024 meeting of the MRCT Center’s Bioethics Collaborative, Impact of Dobbs on Reproductive Health: Unintended Consequences for/on Research, examined how shifting abortion laws in the wake of the Dobbs decision create new risks and ethical challenges for clinical research. Participants discussed the implications for informed consent, site selection, data privacy, and the use of Certificates of Confidentiality (CoCs), particularly in states with restrictive abortion laws. The group explored how legal uncertainty may deter participation, complicate IRB review, and jeopardize data protection for both participants and research staff. The session concluded with recommendations for guidance development, including consent language, institutional training, and privacy safeguards in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.
This meeting was presented to the Bioethics Collaborative. The Bioethics Collaborative is a forum to propose, share, and discuss ethical challenges in multi-national clinical trials. Meetings convene individuals from academia, industry, patient/participant groups, ethics committees, government, and others.
Abstract:The December 2024 session of the MRCT Center’s Bioethics Collaborative, Is It Time to Retire the Concept of Deidentification?, convened experts to explore the limitations of current deidentification standards in the face of advancing technologies and evolving data landscapes. Participants examined the ethical and regulatory frameworks underpinning HIPAA and the Common Rule, debated the feasibility and implications of redefining “identifiability,” and emphasized the growing risk of reidentification, particularly for minoritized groups. Discussions underscored the need for greater public engagement, transparency, and nuanced protections that balance data utility with privacy, while considering interim policy approaches amid calls for systemic reform.
Dr. Carla Saenz, Regional Advisor for Bioethics at the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), speaks with Willyanne DeCormier Plosky, MRCT Center Program Director, to unpack the clinical trial landscape in Latin America.
They discuss:
How demographics, healthcare infrastructure, and insurance models shape who can—and does—participate
Ethical and regulatory strategies to broaden inclusion
The influence of CIOMS and other international guidance on local trial ethics
Designing global studies that honor regional contexts without sacrificing scientific rigor
This episode highlights the critical need for equitable access and culturally responsive research in today’s global trial environment.
For more about the MRCT Center’s work on Global Representation in Clinical Trials, click here.
Integrating JTF Competencies: Curriculum Design and Accreditation at Arizona State University
Comprehensive leveling of the Clinical Research Professional Career Ladder at Johns Hopkins University
Results from a Delphi study on data management competencies
Expanding the Core Competency Framework to include patient, participant, and public engagement and partnership: Updates from the Patient Participant Project workgroup
During Clinical Trials Week, the MRCT Center premiered a weeklong “What’s Your Why?” video series, featuring eleven patients, caregivers, and health professionals who share the personal motivations that drive their commitment to research. From cancer survivors whose trial experiences became today’s standards of care to caregivers finding hope in each study visit, these firsthand stories exemplify why amplifying the voices and lived experiences of participants is vital: to support ethical clinical research that is truly centered on those who stand to benefit.
Now it’s your turn: record a brief video telling us What’s Your Why? and send it to mrct@bwh.harvard.edu or tag us on LinkedIn with #WhatsYourWhy—because every voice counts in shaping safer, more effective treatments.
🎥 A Powerful Why
For Amanda Monteiro, it’s personal. After losing her 20-month-old daughter to leukemia, she champions clinical trials to help uncover new treatments and better outcomes for patients everywhere.
What’s Your Why? #ClinicalTrialsWeek #WhatsYourWhy #ClinicalResearchMatters #MRCTCenterVoices
🎥 A Caring Why
Normand Neault cares for his wife, Marilyn, after her Parkinson’s Disease diagnosis. “Clinical trials give us hope,” he says, highlighting the encouragement they find in being involved—working alongside experts, seeing her neurologist more often, and lifting each other up. For this caregiving duo, trial participation is a positive step forward, together.
What’s Your Why? #ClinicalTrialsWeek #WhatsYourWhy #ClinicalResearchMatters #MRCTCenterVoices
🎥 A Quality-of-Life Why
Living with chronic pain, Linda Hunter strives for the best possible care—and she trusts clinical trials to deliver it. She wants researchers actively working on diagnosis, treatment, and management that help her live fully, and she insists on having a voice in studies that matter to her.
What’s Your Why? #ClinicalTrialsWeek #WhatsYourWhy #ClinicalResearchMatters #MRCTCenterVoices
🎥 A Hope-Driving Why
Marta Botanch—a pediatric research participant turned nurse—experienced firsthand the impact of clinical research. Her trial treatment not only worked for her but has since been approved and is helping countless children. She champions research because it drives innovation, improves patient care, and ensures safe, effective therapies tailored to young patients—offering hope, dignity, and a future where every child has access to the best care.
What’s Your Why? #ClinicalTrialsWeek #WhatsYourWhy #ClinicalResearchMatters #MRCTCenterVoices
🎥 A Bridge-Building Why
After her cancer diagnosis, Roberta Albany recognized a disconnect between the medical community and marginalized populations, especially African American communities. “Clinical trials save lives—not just yours, but lives that come after,” she says, and calls on us to be part of the solution—unlocking breakthroughs that enhance quality of life for all.
What’s Your Why? #ClinicalTrialsWeek #WhatsYourWhy #ClinicalResearchMatters #MRCTCenterVoices
🎥 A Surthriver’s Why
Robert Weker, a 3-time cancer “surthriver,” credits his survival to the bravery of earlier trial participants: “I was able to stand on their shoulders—those treatments became today’s standard of care.” Guided by his belief that all patients deserve to make informed decisions, he champions clinical trials to fuel tomorrow’s breakthroughs.
What’s Your Why? #ClinicalTrialsWeek #WhatsYourWhy #ClinicalResearchMatters #MRCTCenterVoices
🎥 A Survivor’s Why
After battling stage IV melanoma, T.J. Sharpe credits clinical trials with saving his life—and giving hope to thousands walking in his shoes. His message: without research, patients lose access to their best possible options.
What’s Your Why? #ClinicalTrialsWeek #WhatsYourWhy #ClinicalResearchMatters #MRCTCenterVoices
🎥 An Advocate’s Why
Marilynne Quarcoo, a long-time participant and patient advocate, shares how letting go of anxiety around research revealed a powerful truth: each of us can contribute to better health care for countless others.
What’s Your Why? #ClinicalTrialsWeek #WhatsYourWhy #ClinicalResearchMatters #MRCTCenterVoices
🎥 A Determined Why
Diagnosed in her 20s with an unknown subtype of Muscular Dystrophy, Keisha Greaves lives every day without a cure and with only physical therapy as a standard option. “How do we know what will work unless we try it?” she asks—driven by the belief that volunteering for clinical research can unlock treatments not just for her, but for everyone in the disability community.
What’s Your Why? #ClinicalTrialsWeek #WhatsYourWhy #ClinicalResearchMatters #MRCTCenterVoices
🎥 An Empowerment Why
Living with Parkinson’s, Marilyn Neault finds that clinical trials give her a crucial sense of control—helping her benchmark her health and learn more about her condition. “Clinical research is vitally important to me,” she says, driving progress for herself and others.
What’s Your Why? #ClinicalTrialsWeek #WhatsYourWhy #ClinicalResearchMatters #MRCTCenterVoices
🎥 A High School Student’s Why
Having to undergo medical procedures designed for adults catalyzed Anvita Ambardekar’s passion for clinical research and pursuit of a biomedical career. Young people like Anvita are the future of innovation and scientific advancements, and her clear-eyed plea for clinical research that focuses on improving healthcare for children and teenagers is a reminder to all of us who champion representation in clinical trials.
What’s Your Why? #ClinicalTrialsWeek #WhatsYourWhy #ClinicalResearchMatters #MRCTCenterVoices
Published on: November 18, 2024 and updated on May 30, 2025
Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) may influence disease risk, incidence, severity, manifestation, and treatment response. In line with the clinical research guiding principles in the Belmont Report of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, we have developed a toolkit to support equitable participation of people who are LGBTQIA+. The toolkit contains seven tools. Any audience can use the full toolkit, although it should be noted that first four tools are directed more toward sponsors and research teams, and the latter three are directed more toward participants. The first four tools were publicly released individually in the spring of 2024, and the latter were released in November 2004. We invite you to explore the full toolkit or to focus on the specific tools that you find most important to your individual or organizational journey in clinical research.
