Click here to open the filter panel
E
Explicit consent
F
Fairness and transparency
F
FDPIC (Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner)
F
Federated learning
F
Filing system
F
First-in-class drugs
F
First-in-human (FIH) trial
F
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
F
Fundamental rights impact assessment (FRIA)
G
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
G
General-purpose AI model (GPAI)
G
Genetically modified organism (GMO)
G
Genetic data
G
Global public health security
G
Good clinical practice (GCP)
H
HDS certification (Hébergeur de Données de Santé)
H
Health data access body (HDAB)
H
Health data warehouse (HDW)
H
HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR)
H
High-risk AI system
H
HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)
H
Homomorphic encryption
H
Human oversight (AI Act)
H
Human subjects protection review board
I
ICH E6(R3)
I
Incapacitated subject
I
Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
I
Informed consent
I
Inspection
I
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
I
Interactive response technology (IRT)
I
Interactive voice response system (IVRS / IxRS)
I
Interactive web response system (IWRS)
I
International data transfer
I
Investigational Medicinal Product Dossier (IMPD)
I
Investigational medicinal product (IMP)
I
Investigational New Drug (IND) application
I
Investigator
I
Investigator's brochure (IB)
I
Investigator site file (ISF)
I
In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR)
I
ISO/IEC 27001 (information security management)
I
ISO/IEC 42001 (AI management system)
J
Joint controllers
K
k-anonymity
K
Key-coded data (coded data)
K
Key (cryptographic key and pseudonymisation key)
K
Kinetics (pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics)
L
Large language model (LLM)
L
Lawfulness
L
Lay summary
L
Legal basis for processing
L
Legally designated representative
L
Legitimate interest
L
Legitimate interest assessment (LIA)
L
LGPD (Brazil's General Data Protection Law)
L
Limited data set (HIPAA)
L
Local site investigator
M
Main establishment
M
MedDRA
M
Medical Device Regulation (MDR)
M
Membership inference attack
M
Me-too drug
M
MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)
N
Natural history study
N
New drug application (NDA)
N
NIS2 Directive
N
Notified body
O
Observational study
O
Observer-reported outcome (ObsRO)
O
One-stop-shop mechanism and lead supervisory authority
O
Orphan drug designation (ODD)
P
Patient-reported outcome (PRO)
P
Performance outcome (PerfO)
P
Personal data
P
Personal data breach
P
Pharmacokinetics (PK)
P
Pharmacovigilance
P
Population pharmacokinetics (pop PK)
P
Post-market surveillance (PMS)
P
Predetermined change control plan (PCCP)
P
Principal investigator (PI)
P
Principles of data protection
P
Privacy
P
Privacy by design
P
Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs)
P
Privacy notice (information notice)
P
Processing
P
Processor
P
Profiling
P
Protected health information (PHI)
P
Protocol
P
Provider and deployer (AI Act roles)
P
Pseudonymisation
P
Purpose limitation
Q
Qualified Person for Pharmacovigilance (QPPV)
Q
Quality management system (QMS)
Q
Quasi-identifier
Q
Query (clinical data query)
R
Randomisation and trial supply management (RTSM)
Click a letter to view all its definitions
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Term of the Day

Natural history study

A natural history study is a preplanned observational study intended to track the course of a disease over time, identifying demographic, genetic, environmental and other variables that correlate with its development and outcomes in the absence of intervention, or under standard of care. Designs may be retrospective (chart review of existing records) or prospective (longitudinal follow-up of a cohort or registry).

Natural history data is particularly important in rare and paediatric diseases, where randomised placebo-controlled trials may be infeasible or unethical. The FDA (guidance on rare disease natural history studies, 2019) and the EMA accept well-designed natural history studies to define endpoints and biomarkers, identify patient subgroups, estimate sample sizes and, in some cases, serve as external or historical control arms for single-arm trials supporting orphan products.

Because they are non-interventional, natural history studies fall outside the CTR and are governed by national law (for example France's MR-003 or MR-004 reference methodologies) and by the GDPR. They typically involve secondary use of medical records, long-term follow-up, genetic data and small populations in which anonymisation is rarely achievable, so pseudonymisation, a DPIA and a robust research legal basis under Art. 9(2)(j) are essential. Registries maintained by patient organisations or academic consortia raise additional questions of joint controllership and data access governance.

L

Lay summary

A lay summary is a plain-language explanation of clinical trial results intended for people without specialist scientific knowledge. Under the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, it accompanies the scientific results summary and follows Annex V. Its purpose is understandable reporting of findings, not promotion of the investigational treatment.

Key takeaways

  • Annex V sets the content for the EU lay summary.
  • Reporting is required regardless of the trial’s outcome.
  • Plain language must preserve the meaning of the results.

What a Lay Summary Should Explain

The CCMO results guidance states the general requirement to submit results and the lay summary to CTIS within one year of the trial ending in all Member States concerned. Special timing rules and justified scientific exceptions need checking for the particular trial. The EU expert-group recommendations explain how to turn Annex V content into accessible reporting.

ComponentReader’s question
Purpose and participantsWhy was this trial conducted, and who took part?
Results and reactionsWhat happened, including unwanted effects?
Conclusion and further informationWhat do the findings mean, and where can I learn more?

Why It Matters for Data Protection

As an operational recommendation, review disclosure risk separately from readability. Small cohorts, detailed patient stories and unusual combinations of characteristics deserve particular attention before public release. Use aggregate explanations where appropriate, retain important scientific limitations and avoid claims that exceed the evidence. A readable sentence can still be misleading if it hides uncertainty or changes the denominator used for a result.

Hypothetical example: A trial finds no clear difference between treatments. The writing team recommends explaining that result directly, describing uncertainty and reporting unwanted effects, rather than replacing the finding with an optimistic statement about future potential. Patient reviewers can test clarity without receiving participant-level records.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a lay summary an informed consent form?

No. It explains results; consent materials support a decision about participation.

Can an unfavourable result be omitted?

No. The results-reporting obligation applies regardless of outcome.

Is the same deadline universal?

No. Confirm the applicable trial-specific rules and any properly justified exception.

Related reading: Clinical Trials Regulation, CTIS.

For practical implementation, explore clinical trial data protection support.

Updated: 27 October 2026