Associations of conscientiousness with cardiac troponin T and stress coping responses in a teacher cohort: the SABPA prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In a South African bi-ethnic cohort, defensive (DefS)/social support/avoidance coping strategies have been shown to influence cardiac troponin T (cTnT) levels through different stress signalling pathways. Personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness) partially control stress coping responses and may affect prospective cardiac responses. Hence in this cohort, we aimed to examine relationships between personality traits and coping strategies, and to assess associations between cTnT changes over time, personality traits and coping strategies. Methods: A cohort of African and Caucasian male and female teachers (n = 359) participating in both phases of the Sympathetic activity and Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Africans (SABPA) study, was prospectively followed for three years. Personality traits (Basic Traits Inventory) and coping (Coping Strategy Indicator) scores were determined. Fasting serum samples for cTnT determination were collected. Established hypertension-related cTnT cut-off points of 4.2 pg/ml (Africans) and 5.6 pg/ml (Caucasians) were applied. Results: Higher neuroticism and lower conscientiousness scores were found in the Africans than in the Caucasians (p < 0.05). Both traits correlated with all three coping strategies in Caucasians, but only with DefS and avoidance coping in Africans. Over a period of three years, cTnT levels decreased in both races. Compared to Africans, Caucasians showed a greater recovery from the ethnic-specific cTnT cut-off point over time. In the Africans with high DefS scores, cTnT level changes were inversely associated with conscientiousness (adjusted R2 = 0.14; β = -0.26). In Caucasians scoring high in avoidance coping, conscientiousness (odds ratio 0.84) and neuroticism (odds ratio 0.90) showed a lower likelihood of predicting the cTnT cut-off point. Conclusion: In both races, conscientiousness may contribute to healthier stress coping responses and protect against cardiac ischaemia and risk of hypertension. Keywords: cardiac ischaemia; coping; personality traits; troponin T.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".