deletions | additions       diff --git a/Initially_I_had_marked_a__.tex b/Initially_I_had_marked_a__.tex  index fbb2f63..01f8493 100644  --- a/Initially_I_had_marked_a__.tex  +++ b/Initially_I_had_marked_a__.tex 
...
InitiallyI had marked  a few scans that had small amounts of dura classified as brain at the top of the head (that I was planning to edit later), which I had were  mistakenly excluded. We Those scans were  then includedthose scans  to see if it affected the results (in particular, $CV_a$, as this is the most important for power calculations) and found that including these subjects, thankfully, subjects  did not change the results. We have now included the The  results from revised dataset are shown  in the manuscript. For eTIV registration checks were added to  thenew  QC procedure, I followed your advice to look at eTIV. procedure.  This makes more sense because this is the one of the first steps in recon-all and a bad registration to the talairach template could lead to innacurate segmentations overall.We left out  3 scans were left out from eTIV misregistration  in total, total:  1 scan from the same subject in sites 4 and 6 and another at site 11 that had very bad coregistration. 11.  Due to time constraints, not all 12 people were able to be scanned at some of the sites. Other scans that were  left outscans  include one scan because where  part of the head was not acquired (possibly the files were corrupted), and one scan was left out because it was an identical copy of the first instead of a rescan (perhaps a problem with transferring data). A column was added in the acquisition tables to reflect how many actual scans were acquired at each site, and information about why the scans were left out was added in the Methods section.