deletions | additions       diff --git a/Initially_I_had_marked_a__.tex b/Initially_I_had_marked_a__.tex  index 534424c..fbb2f63 100644  --- a/Initially_I_had_marked_a__.tex  +++ b/Initially_I_had_marked_a__.tex 
...
Initially I 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 mistakenly excluded. We then included those 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, did not change the results. We have now included the results from revised dataset in the manuscript. For the new QC procedure, I followed your advice to look at eTIV. 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 in total, 1 scan from 1 the same  subject from in  sites 4,6 4 and 6  and another at site  11 that had very bad coregistration. From sites 4 and 6, we left out one scan Due to time constraints, not all 12 people were able to be scanned at some  of the same subject, and at site 11 it was a different subject. sites.  Other left out scans were due to time constraints (we didn't have time to scan all the subjects), include  one scanwas left out  because 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). We've added a A  column was added  in the acquisition tables to reflect how many actual scans were acquired at each site, andhave added  information about why the scans were left out was added  in the Methods section.