deletions | additions       diff --git a/Our_results_should_be_compared__.tex b/Our_results_should_be_compared__.tex  index 5ec5a4c..9825d94 100644  --- a/Our_results_should_be_compared__.tex  +++ b/Our_results_should_be_compared__.tex 
...
Our results should be compared to the cross-sectional results from \cite{jovicich2013brain} which had notably worse reliability than the longitudinal results. I We  have included 2 new tables 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. We found that our mean within-site ICC was in the same range as \cite{jovicich2013brain}, which makes sense because we are using the same cross-sectional pipeline and the sequences are close to the standard vendor sequences of \cite{jovicich2013brain}.