Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 138 studies in Long-term cohort studies · free to read · tagged Risk Factors (page 1 of 6) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 138 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Long-term cohort studies” covers

Long-term cohort studies — Large groups of people followed for years, tracking who develops dementia and what came before it.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

The association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and incident dementia remains inconclusive. 4 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 5,255 Evidence: moderate

The average life expectancy has increased substantially in the past few decades in most industrialized countries; however, not all of the increased life expectancy is being spent in optimal health, especially among individuals with low socioeconomic status. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 135 Evidence: moderate

We tested the hypothesis that a causal relationship exists between systolic BP (SBP) and/or diastolic BP (DBP) and risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 299,024 Evidence: high

Individual conditions have been identified as risk factors for dementia; however, it is important to consider the role of multimorbidity, as conditions often co-occur. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 960 Evidence: moderate

Data were drawn from the UK Biobank cohort study with a total of 228 223 participants with Hospital Episodes Statistics and primary care linkage health records. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,378 Evidence: moderate

Incidence and risk of dementia. The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. American journal of epidemiology 1998-03-01

To assess age-, sex-, and subtype-specific incidence rates of dementia and to calculate the risk of dementia, the authors performed a large, community-based, prospective cohort study on dementia as part of the Rotterdam Study. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 7,046 Evidence: moderate

Dietary antioxidants and long-term risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2010-07-01

The Rotterdam Study previously found that higher dietary intakes of vitamins E and C related to lower risk of dementia and Alzheimer disease (AD) over 6 years of follow-up. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,395 Evidence: moderate

Sex differences in major cardiovascular risk factors for incident (fatal or non-fatal) all-cause dementia were assessed in the UK Biobank. 4 key findings →

Participants: 502,226 Evidence: low

Low hemoglobin and anemia are associated with cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 6,833 Evidence: moderate

Assessment of Advanced Glycation End Products and Receptors and the Risk of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA network open 2021-01-04

Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) and their receptor (RAGE) are implicated in the pathophysiological processes of dementia and potentially underlie the association of diabetes with neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,021 Evidence: moderate

In addition, the underlying mechanism and driven mediators are largely unknown. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 154,549 Evidence: moderate

Studies of long-term cognitive change should account for the potential effects of education on the outcome, since some studies have demonstrated an association of education with dementia risk. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 14,020 Evidence: moderate

Social determinants of health (SDHs) are the primary drivers of preventable health inequities, and the associations between SDHs and health outcomes among individuals with type 2 diabetes remain unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 17 Evidence: moderate

Identifying independent and interactive associations of a wide range of diseases and multimorbidity and apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) with dementia may help promote cognitive health. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 471,485 Evidence: moderate

The association between vascular risk factors and dementia varies with age, making generalizability of dementia risk prediction rules to individuals of different ages challenging. 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,899 Evidence: moderate

Numerous studies have investigated the impacts of common types of chronic pain (CP) on patients' cognitive function and observed that CP was associated with later dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 354,943 Evidence: moderate

Differences between users and non-users of insulin, metformin and sulfonylurea were assessed in each cohort for cognitive and brain MRI measures using linear regression models, and cognitive decline and dementia/AD risk using mixed effect models and Cox regression analyses, respectively. 4 key findings →

Participants: 3,590 Evidence: moderate

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled.

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomized / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multicenter collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 31,380 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed    Where this research is being discussed: events