Radcliffe's mark is more an outlier now and there are a few reasons for this.
1) Using a fixed percentage 11% or whatever is not the correct approach for comparisons between genders but 11% is certainly closer than 10%.
2) Radcliffe and her benefit from pacers is likewise a mistake, since at minimum, the current men's marathon is also pretty much assisted in similar fashion.
3) Interesting and sadly ridiculous to use Chinese distance marks in the comparison too -- though it may be true that a clean runner will hit or surpass those marks soon enough, this really has not happened.