Methodological differences are a common justification for the replication crisis in scientific research. We have acknowledged in our paper1 that the different scales used to measure early life complications (ELCs) between our study and Ursini et al2 were a possible reason for the discrepancy in the findings. The McNeil–Sjöström scale is more detailed than the Lewis-Murray scale; however, the latter is more broadly used, with strong evidence that complications as specified in this scale significantly predict case-control status (pooled odds ratio from the latest meta-analysis 1.83, P value of .004).3 More detailed measurement of the environmental risk is always desirable, but there is a trade-off between quantity and quality of data, as indicated by the high variability in the prevalence of ELCs (20%–66%) between the different samples in the Ursini et al’s study.2