  For many cancer sites low-dose risks are not known and must be extrapolated
from those observed in groups exposed at much higher levels of dose.
Measurement error can substantially alter the dose-response shape. Recently,
there has been considerable attention paid to methods of dealing with shared
errors, which are common in many datasets. In this paper we test Bayesian model
averaging (BMA) and frequentist model averaging (FMA) methods, the first of
these similar to the so-called Bayesian two-dimensional Monte Carlo (2DMC)
method, against a newly proposed modification of the regression calibration
method. The quasi-2DMC with BMA method performs poorly, with coverage
probabilities both for the linear and quadratic dose coefficients that are
under 5% when the magnitude of shared Berkson error is large (50%). The method
also produces substantially biased (by a factor of 10) estimates of both linear
and quadratic coefficients, with the linear coefficient overestimated and the
quadratic coefficient underestimated. FMA performs generally better, although
the coverage probability for the quadratic coefficient is uniformly too high.
However both linear and quadratic coefficients have upward bias, particularly
when Berkson error is large. By comparison the extended regression calibration
method yields coverage probabilities that are too low when shared and unshared
Berkson errors are both large (50%), although otherwise it performs well, and
coverage is generally better than the quasi-2DMC with BMA or FMA methods. The
bias of the predicted relative risk at a variety of doses is generally smallest
for extended regression calibration, and largest for the quasi-2DMC with BMA
and FMA methods, with standard regression calibration and Monte Carlo maximum
likelihood exhibiting bias in predicted relative risk generally somewhat
intermediate between the other two methods.
