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

中文翻译：

---

胎盘基因和产科并发症尚无定论

方法论上的差异是科学研究中复制危机的常见理由。我们在论文¹中承认，我们的研究与 Ursini 等人²之间用于测量早期生活并发症 (ELC) 的不同量表可能是导致研究结果存在差异的原因。McNeil-Sjöström 量表比 Lewis-Murray 量表更详细；然而，后者使用更广泛，有强有力的证据表明，该量表中指定的并发症可显着预测病例对照状态（最新荟萃分析的汇总优势比为 1.83，P值为 0.004）。³更详细的环境风险测量总是可取的，但在数据的数量和质量之间存在权衡，正如 Ursini 中不同样本之间 ELC 流行率的高度可变性 (20%–66%) 所示等人的研究。²