Table 2: Results of fitting a linear dose response using binary regression.

Dose masking scheme ERRa (per Gray) Standard error Deviance LR statistic ( value) Relative bias (%) MSE None 0.5235 0.1548 826.36 9.27 (0.0023) — 0.0240 Rounded to three decimal digits 0.5237 0.1548 826.35 9.28 (0.0023) 0.038 0.0240 Rounded to two decimal digits 0.5235 0.1547 826.35 9.28 (0.0023) 0 0.0239 Rounded to nearest centiGray 0.5235 0.1548 826.36 9.27 (0.0023) 0 0.0240 Rounded to nearest deciGray 0.5228 0.1547 826.36 9.27 (0.0023) 0.13 0.0239 Stratifiedb 0.5320 0.1553 826.11 9.52 (0.0020) 1.6 0.0242 Randomizedc  ± 0.001 0.5235 0.1548 826.36 9.27 0.015 0.0240   (min, max) (0.5234, 0.5238) (0.1548, 0.1549) (0.0023) (0, 0.057) (0.02397, 0.02398)  ± 0.01 0.5239 0.155 826.36 9.28 0.16 0.0240   (min, max) (0.5226, 0.5266) (0.1548,0.1551) (0.0023) (0, 0.59) (0.02396, 0.02407)  ± 0.1 0.5271 0.155 826.33 9.31 1.6 0.0243   (min, max) (0.5159, 0.5573) (0.1537,0.1584) (0.0023) (1.4, 6.5) (0.02415, 0.02557)

aERR: excess relative risk (relative risk—1). Precision is overrepresented for comparison. bDoses were stratified according to the categories used in Life Span Study Report 13 [27]. The dose value assigned to each individual was the mean of all database AHS stomach dose values in that group. cA random uniform deviate between the specified range was added to the dose; if this operation resulted in a negative value, the masked dose was set to zero. Results are the averages from 500 simulations.