deletions | additions       diff --git a/Our_results_should_be_compared__.tex b/Our_results_should_be_compared__.tex  index f72dcb8..d6d084d 100644  --- a/Our_results_should_be_compared__.tex  +++ b/Our_results_should_be_compared__.tex 
...
Our results should be were  compared to the cross-sectional results from \cite{jovicich2013brain} which had notably worse reliability than the longitudinal results. We have included 2 Two  new tables were included  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 The  mean within-site ICC's were in the same range as \cite{jovicich2013brain}, which makes sense because given that  we are using ran  the same cross-sectional pipeline and the sequences are were  close to the standard vendor sequences of \cite{jovicich2013brain}. In the response to reviewer 2 and in the discussion we have also compared our results to the calibration efforts of Schnack et al 2004, where histogram intensity thresholds were calibrated rather than the volumes themselves.