deletions | additions       diff --git a/I_was_not_clear_about__.tex b/I_was_not_clear_about__.tex  index d2134ee..94946e7 100644  --- a/I_was_not_clear_about__.tex  +++ b/I_was_not_clear_about__.tex 
...
I was not clear about the The  overall goal of this project, which project  was not to claim that the method of scanning 12 phantom subjects travel is in any way was  cost effective! effective.  Rather, the goal was to measure MRI-related biases when systems are not standardized, and then see how we one  can overcome these biases with proper sample sizes, rather than our a  costly calibration method. If sites don't need to harmonize, they can include retrospective data in method or harmonization (for  the analysis, which is certainly cost-effective. Also, it case of retrospective data). This also  allows sites the freedom to upgrade hardware/software or even change sequences during a study. This might be an incentive for sites to contribute data even if they are given little financial incentive, because it requires very little effort on their part! We focused too much on the support. The  phantom calibration aspect when actually we should have emphasized has been minimized  our statistical model that accounts for MRI-related biases, the biases has been emphasized. The  measurements of that bias (which were estimatedand validated  via calibration), calibration) are an important part of this study because they validate the scaling assumption of the statistical model  and provide researchers values to plug into  the idea that this is power equation. Our framework provides  an alternative method to ADNI harmonization, rather than a strict improvement. The human phantom calibration is still important to validate our assumption of scaled bias to our measurements, and showed that  the overall absolute agreement between sites improves to the same level of ADNI ADNI-type  harmonization. I follow up on this in my response to the next revision, which compares our Our  results are compared  to other harmonization efforts. efforts in the manuscript and in the following response.