this is for holding javascript data
- Although the consortium includes 1.5T systems (4), it is dominated by 3T systems (16 out of 20), by one vendor (Siemens: 11 out of 16 at 3T, 2 out of 4 at 1.5T) and there does not seem to be a lot of variability in the acquisition parameters across protocols within vendor and field. Under such circumstances it seems that a proper acquisition calibration could have been fairly easy, and the consortium appears to be less of a good candidate of a consortium with high intrinsic variability on which to validate the proposed calibration method. In particular, it is well known that T1 contrast changes with field strength. Despite the unbalanced nature of the consortium, it would be useful if the authors would present and discuss reliability differences at the two field strengths evaluated, putting results in perspective with previous studies (Roche et al. 2014; Wolz et al. 2014; Jovicich et al. 2009; Wyman et al. 2013; Whitwell et al. 2012).
