deletions | additions       diff --git a/Our_results_were_compared_to__.tex b/Our_results_were_compared_to__.tex  index d6d084d..b514f10 100644  --- a/Our_results_were_compared_to__.tex  +++ b/Our_results_were_compared_to__.tex 
...
Our results were compared to the cross-sectional results from \cite{jovicich2013brain} which had notably worse reliability than the longitudinal results. Two new tables were included that compare our results to \cite{jovicich2013brain} and \cite{cannon2014} both in the manuscript and in the response to reviewer 2's similar major concern. The mean within-site ICC's were in the same range as \cite{jovicich2013brain}, which makes sense given that we ran the same cross-sectional pipeline pipeline,  and the sequences were close to the standard vendor sequences of \cite{jovicich2013brain}. In the response to reviewer 2 and in the discussion we have also compared our results to the calibration efforts of Schnack et al 2004, where histogram intensity thresholds were calibrated rather than the volumes themselves.