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 1,301–1,325 of 1,649 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study · free to read (page 53 of 66) · 30,980 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these 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.

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.

Over the last decade, age-standardised dementia incidence estimated rates have decreased by 52.8 % for women and 53.1 % for males. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Cognitive impairment and dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), pose a global health crisis, necessitating non-invasive biomarkers for early detection. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

An AI‐first framework for multimodal data in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-09-01

Advancing the understanding and management of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias requires integrating and analyzing diverse data modalities. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among the 18,013 participants with complete data for analysis, 516 (2.86%) exhibited cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 27,768 Evidence: moderate

The DABNI cohort included 1,135 participants with a mean age of 42.82 years (SD = 11.56), 46.3% of whom are female. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,135 Evidence: moderate

This study aims to identify depressive risks in elderly individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and develop a predictive model using machine learning algorithms to enable timely interventions. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a significant and increasingly recognized problem in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

• Longitudinal imaging-genetics study of hippocampal atrophy trajectories over 5 years in ADNI. • APOE -ε4 carriership and ApoE CSF proteomic quantitative trait loci are key genetic drivers of accelerated hippocampal atrophy in amyloid-positive MCI. • Genetic effects are stage-specific, with strongest associations during the prodromal phase of AD. • Sex differences in atrophy rates are observed, but do not significantly alter genetic influences. • Findings support the utility of APOE and functional genetic markers as stratification tools for early neurodegeneration in AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,051 Evidence: moderate

AI-powered model for accurate prediction of MCI-to-AD progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 2025-02-10

Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains a formidable challenge in modern healthcare, necessitating innovative approaches for its early detection and intervention. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Of the 250 participants, 121 (48.4%) were female and the mean age at follow-up was 76.06 (SD 0.48). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 250 Evidence: moderate

In MCI and dementia, the HTS is an ecologically valid non-canonical sign, frequently occurs in daily life too, associated with longer disease duration and spatial disorientation. 2 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Participants: 71 Evidence: moderate

Routine liver–metabolic indices were associated with cognitive performance, while FIB-4 stage showed effect modification by APOE ε4 in relation to both cognition and amyloid PET SUVR. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 507 Evidence: moderate

We identified all participants in the UK Biobank cohort study diagnosed with HF prior to enrolment or during follow-up, who had disease occurrence data available from both primary and secondary care records (n = 9824). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 9,824 Evidence: moderate

General and central obesity trajectories beyond midlife with persistently high or increasing patterns were significantly associated with an increased risk of developing cognitive decline and dementia in late life. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The combinations that were both highly prevalent and had the most detrimental effect on global cognition were: hearing loss and physical inactivity for the dyad (mean difference in change score = -0.07 SD; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), hearing loss, physical inactivity, and hypertension for the triad (mean difference in change score = -0.07; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), and hearing loss, physical inactivity, hypertension, and sleep disturbance for the tetrad (mean difference in change score = -0.05; 95 % CI: -0.07 to -0.03; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.20). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 30,097 Evidence: moderate

The Association Between Possible Sarcopenia and Delirium Onset in Older Patients With Acute Stroke

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Cureus 2025-06-29

Our findings suggest that possible sarcopenia is a significant and independent predictor of delirium in older patients with acute stroke. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 543 Evidence: moderate

Continued Use of Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine in Hospice

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. JAMA Internal Medicine 2025-03-24

This cohort study examines the use of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine among older adults with dementia after admission into hospice care despite the medications’ limited clinical benefit following enrollment into hospice. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

VLAHE residents had fewer hospitalizations and shorter stays (10.5 vs 15.2 days, P = .0004) than comparable NH residents, particularly for acute care. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Considerable data support the presence of both systemic and CNS inflammation in SVD and VCID. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Our literature search resulted in 32 studies published until October 2012. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Early and accurate detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is essential for timely intervention and development of disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Lewy body (LB) disorders, including Parkinson disease (PD), Parkinson disease dementia (PDD), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), are the second most common type of neurodegenerative dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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
  • Randomised / 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
  • Multi-centre 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 30,980 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 30,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.4%), 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.

1,042 records (3.4% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 967 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