deletions | additions       diff --git a/I_asked_colleagues_that_work__.tex b/I_asked_colleagues_that_work__.tex  index fdaaca8..3f3df95 100644  --- a/I_asked_colleagues_that_work__.tex  +++ b/I_asked_colleagues_that_work__.tex 
...
\label{comparetocannon}  \end{table}  The only ROI that does not compare to \cite{cannon2014} is the Thalamus. It thalamus and the white matter volume (WMV). For the thalamus, it  is possible that the FIRST algorithm is more reliable at segmenting this structure. structure, while for white matter volume, Freesurfer is more reliable.  I included another table by \cite{jovicich2013brain} where sites were not strictly harmonized, but different control subjects were scanned at each site, and the authors used the same freesurfer cross-sectional algorithm that we used. Instead of calculating between-site ICC's, they calculated the average within-site ICCs for each ROI. The following table (which is now included in the manuscript) compares our within-site ICC's pre- and post- calibraiton to \cite{jovicich2013brain} average within-site ICC values: \begin{table}   \begin{tabular}{ c c c c }