text: participant’s first two baseline scans (that is, preconception) to derive 
  within-participant variability estimates. 
  61. Reuter, M., Schmansky, N. J., Rosas, H. D. & Fischl, B. 
  
  Within-subject template estimation for unbiased longitudinal 
  image analysis.*Neuroimage***61**, 1402–1418 (2012). 
  
  Benchmarking our data in this way allows us to capture the degree 
  of change expected due to factors such as image processing and 
  instrumentation variability or other day-to-day changes that could 
  potentially modulate brain size and shape (see ref. 80 for review). The 
  percent change observed over pregnancy (baseline versus 36 weeks 
  gestation) far exceeds the expected variability estimated using both 
  the Day2Day dataset (Supplementary Fig. 11) and our within-participant 
  control data. This was quantified by dividing the observed percent 
  change in GMV metrics (baseline versus 36 weeks) by the global meas- 
  ure of GMV percent variability of each control group (that is, Day2Day, 
  within-participant control), independently for cortex and subcortex. 
  
  62. Desikan, R. S. et al. An automated labeling system for subdividing 
  the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions 
  of interest.*Neuroimage***31**, 968–980 (2006). 
  
  63. Fischl, B. et al. Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling 
  of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain.*Neuron***33**, 
  341–355 (2002). 
  64. Esteban, O. et al. MRIQC: advancing the automatic prediction 
  
  of image quality in MRI from unseen sites.*PLoS ONE***12**, e0184661 
  (2017). 
  65. Esteban, O. et al. MRIQC Web-API: crowdsourcing image quality 