deletions | additions       diff --git a/begin_enumerate_item_Roche_et__.tex b/begin_enumerate_item_Roche_et__.tex  index f488603..43afcb0 100644  --- a/begin_enumerate_item_Roche_et__.tex  +++ b/begin_enumerate_item_Roche_et__.tex 
...
\item Wolz et al 2014: LEAP algorithm on hippocampal volumes, compared between 1.5T and 3T found small bias (1.17\% mean signed difference) between field strengths on ADNI data. When we look at the scaling factors of our data on hippocampal volumes, we find that the average of scaling factors for the 1.5T scanners is 0.99, while the average of the 3T scanners is 1, showing that the 1.5T scanner volumes, on average, are around 1\% larger than the 3T (with only 4 1.5T scanners, this is not a significant difference), which is very similar to the findings of Wolz et al, though the algorithm used in Wolz et al are much more accurate.  \item Jovicich 2009 - they found that test-retest reproducibility does not change much cross platforms and field strengths. We also found that all our scanners were very reliable, with the except of a few sites with bad reproducibility of the thalamus.   In the discussion I've added:   "Even though we did not standardize the protocols and scanners within this study, the consortium is unbalanced in that there are 16 3T scanners of which 11 are Siemens. Of the Siemens 3T scanners, there is little variability in TR, TE and TI, however, there is more variance in the use of parallel imaging, the number of channels in the head coil (12, 20 or 32), the read-out direction (FH, HF, RL or AP), and the field of view. We could not detect differences in scan-rescan reliability between field strengths, similar to the findings of (Jovicich 2009). Wolz and colleagues also could not detect differences in scan-rescan reliabilities of the hippocampus volumes estimated by the LEAP algorithm, but they detected a small bias between field strengths, where the hippocampus volumes in the 3T ADNI scanners were 1.17 \% larger than the 1.5T (Wolz 2014). A two-sample T-test with unequal variances was run between the scaling factors of the 1.5T versus 3T scanners, and we could not detect differences in any ROI except for the left- and right- amydgala. We found that the scaling factors were lower than the 3T scanners (.9 versus 1.02), meaning that the amygdala volume estimates from the 1.5T were larger than those of the 3T. However, this interpretation is limited due to the small sample size of 1.5T scanners in this consortium."  \item Wyman et al. 2013: This paper emphasized the use of ADNI's standardized data sets, which they say add   \begin{enumerate}  \item Greater rigor in reporting