alzhub.org
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.

Research

32,180 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 29 studies in Long-term cohort studies with an author at University of Oxford (GB) · free to read (page 1 of 2) · 32,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 29 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.

Other subjects

Authors

Names as each record prints them; the same person can appear under two spellings.

Other institutions

From OpenAlex; 17,651 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

UK Biobank: An Open Access Resource for Identifying the Causes of a Wide Range of Complex Diseases of Middle and Old Age

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. PLoS Medicine 2015-03-31

Points• UK Biobank is a very large and detailed prospective study with over 500,000 participants aged 40-69 years when recruited in 2006-2010.• The study has collected and continues to collect extensive phenotypic and genotypic detail about its participants, including data from questionnaires, physical measures, sample assays, accelerometry, multimodal imaging, genome-wide genotyping and longitudinal follow-up for a wide range of health-related outcomes.• Wide consultation; input from scientific, management, legal, and ethical partners; and industrial-scale, centralised processes have been essential to the development of this resource.• UK Biobank is available for open access, without the need for collaboration, to any bona fide researcher who wishes to use it to conduct health-related research for the benefit of the public. 1 key finding →

Design: case-control study Participants: 500,000 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Plasma Neurofilament Light for Prediction of Disease Progression in Familial Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Neurology 2021-04-07

We tested the hypothesis that plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) identifies asymptomatic carriers of familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD)-causing mutations at risk of disease progression. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 277 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association between metabolic syndrome and risk of incident dementia in UK Biobank

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 73 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2023-09-07

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

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Common Genetic Variation Indicates Separate Causes for Periventricular and Deep White Matter Hyperintensities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Stroke 2020-06-10

Periventricular white matter hyperintensities (WMH; PVWMH) and deep WMH (DWMH) are regional classifications of WMH and reflect proposed differences in cause. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 26,654 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

¹⁸F-FDG PET for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2015-01-28

¹⁸F-FDFG uptake by brain tissue as measured by positron emission tomography (PET) is a well-established method for assessment of brain function in people with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 14 Evidence: high

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

High Blood Pressure and Risk of Dementia: A Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Study in the UK Biobank

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 68 out of 100. Biological psychiatry 2020-12-27

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of Multimorbidity, Disease Clusters, and Modification by Genetic Factors With Risk of Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. JAMA network open 2022-09-01

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Shingles, Zostavax vaccination and risk of developing dementia: a nested case-control study-results from the UK Biobank cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. BMJ open 2021-10-08

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Associations of social determinants of health with life expectancy and future health risks among individuals with type 2 diabetes: two nationwide cohort studies in the UK and USA

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. The lancet. Healthy longevity 2024-08-05

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

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Cardiometabolic multimorbidity, genetic risk, and dementia: a prospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. The lancet. Healthy longevity 2022-06-01

Individual cardiometabolic disorders and genetic factors are associated with an increased dementia risk; however, the relationship between dementia and cardiometabolic multimorbidity is unclear. 4 key findings →

Participants: 236 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Development and validation of a dementia risk score in the UK Biobank and Whitehall II cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. BMJ mental health 2023-07-01

Current dementia risk scores have had limited success in consistently identifying at-risk individuals across different ages and geographical locations. 4 key findings →

Participants: 176 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Predicting incident dementia 3-8 years after brief cognitive tests in the UK Biobank prospective study of 500,000 people

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2019-10-13

Prospective studies reporting associations between cognitive performance and subsequent incident dementia have been subject to attrition bias. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,051 Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of outdoor air pollution exposure and cognitive function in UK Biobank

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Scientific reports 2018-08-14

Observational studies have shown consistently increased likelihood of dementia or mild cognitive impairment diagnoses in people with higher air pollution exposure history, but evidence has been less consistent for associations with cognitive test performance. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

The predictive validity of a Brain Care Score for dementia and stroke: data from the UK Biobank cohort

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Frontiers in neurology 2023-12-01

The 21-point Brain Care Score (BCS) was developed through a modified Delphi process in partnership with practitioners and patients to promote behavior changes and lifestyle choices in order to sustainably reduce the risk of dementia and stroke. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Association of multimorbidity and disease clusters with neuroimaging and cognitive outcomes in UK Biobank

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer s Disease 2025-05-26

A total of 43,160 participants were included (mean [standard deviation] age, 64.2 [7.7] years, 53.1 % female). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 43,160 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

Associations of Vestibular Disorders With Risk of All‐Cause and Cause‐Specific Dementia: A Longitudinal Cohort Study in UK Biobank

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Sensory Neuroscience 2026-01-14

Vestibular disorders were linked to higher risks of all‐cause dementia (HR 1.86 and 95% CI 1.04–3.30), Alzheimer's disease (AD, 2.36, and 1.01–5.51), and vascular dementia (VD, 3.35, and 1.48–7.59). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text

↑ 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 32,180 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 32,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (66.5% of the library) and OpenAlex (15.8%), 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.

1,045 records (3.2% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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

Last updated