I guess the important question is the intended purpose of the glossary. The definitions are often what is definitions rather than what’s the purpose of definitions.
For example, interquartile range is simply defined as the range between the outer quartiles. Fair enough, but we’re not told it’s a measure of data spread.
And observational studies are defined as Study in which no experimental condition (e.g., treatment) is manipulated by the investigator, i.e., randomization is not used which defines them by the absence of a feature. It would help to mention that they are frequently used to measure the characteristics of a study population and to look for associations between these characteristics. And maybe that they are frequently used in health research.
The level of detail, both in terms of formulas and examples, varies widely – paired data, for example, is quite comprehensive, while parametric model simply says A model based on a mathematical function having a few unknown parameters.
My advice would be to define a readership and to do a think-aloud protocol. I am constantly surprised by the explanations that practising doctors do and do not understand. Markov models, for example, are easy, while degrees of freedom (found in every paper in a journal club) is one that I still haven’t found an easy explanation for.
I must welcome the project, though, and wish it well. When two peoples speak different languages, the person who makes a good dictionary deserves to be honoured.
As a footnote : I have a very ancient copy of Johnson’s dictionary, and it does, indeed, define a lexicographer as A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge.