Odds Ratio Calculation for Cesarean Section and Type 1 Diabetes
The odds ratio is 0.167, indicating that cesarean section appears protective against type 1 diabetes in this dataset, though this finding contradicts established biological plausibility and likely reflects methodological issues rather than a true protective effect. 1
Step-by-Step Calculation
Using the standard 2×2 contingency table formula:
- Cases (Type 1 DM): 80 cesarean sections, 120 vaginal deliveries
- Controls (No DM): 160 cesarean sections, 40 vaginal deliveries
OR = (80/120) / (160/40) = 0.667 / 4.0 = 0.167 1
This calculation uses the formula: OR = (exposed cases / unexposed cases) / (exposed controls / unexposed controls).
Critical Interpretation Warning
This calculated OR of 0.167 is biologically implausible and contradicts the established research literature showing cesarean section increases type 1 diabetes risk. 1 The protective effect suggested by your dataset likely reflects:
- Sampling bias in how cases and controls were selected
- Reverse causation (diabetes complications leading to cesarean section rather than cesarean section causing diabetes)
- Data collection errors in the original study design 1
What the Research Actually Shows
The published literature demonstrates the opposite relationship:
- Cesarean section increases type 1 diabetes risk by approximately 2.5-fold in children followed from birth (HR 2.5,95% CI 1.4-4.3) 2
- Elective cesarean section shows a 12% increased crude risk for type 1 diabetes compared to vaginal delivery in meta-analyses 3
- The mechanism involves bypassing maternal vaginal/anal microbiome exposure and altered immune system development, particularly in children with susceptible IFIH1 genotypes 2
- Cesarean section accelerates progression to symptomatic diabetes after islet autoantibodies appear (adjusted HR 1.36,95% CI 1.03-1.79) 4
Common Pitfall
Do not interpret a mathematically correct OR as clinically valid without considering biological plausibility and comparison to established evidence. 1 Your dataset's protective OR contradicts decades of research and should prompt investigation of the data source rather than acceptance of the finding.