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 1,451–1,475 of 1,649 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study · free to read (page 59 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.

The direct associations identified may present potential intervention targets, while the indirect relationships suggest that other factors are influential in the pathway linking social isolation and loneliness with chronic disease and dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,670 Evidence: moderate

At baseline, sbvFTD showed right-predominant temporal pole involvement associated with significant right frontal atrophy. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

= 0.005). Cox regression analysis revealed that polypharmacy was significantly associated with a reduced risk of MCI progression to dementia (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 0.78) after adjusting for covariates. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

We identified 8 brain structural features from 192 MRI features that were associated with the risk of MCI progressing to AD, including: left hippocampus, left inferior lateral ventricle, left amygdala, right middle temporal gyrus, left fusiform gyrus, right amygdala, left cortical total volume, and brain parenchyma total volume. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 947 Evidence: moderate

Time‐dependent biomarker accuracy in forecasting mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Neurophysiological activity features and tau pet provided additional information to the clinical model when acquired up to ∼4 years prior to diagnosis, but their accuracy decreased at larger intervals. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 102 Evidence: moderate

Subgroups with slower versus faster neurodegeneration, despite similar pathological accumulation, were compared to assess associations with genetic/lifestyles. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 529 Evidence: moderate

Whole-brain bm-CVR values were significantly associated with the diagnosis group of normal, MCI, and early dementia (β = -3.00%/mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-5.42, -0.58]), and were lower in the impaired participants relative to participants with normal cognition (β = -2.18, CI [-3.91, -0.45]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate

High LDL-C (≥160 mg/dL) increased AD risk across all groups {hazard ratio (HR): 1.23 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.38],p<0.001;HR: 1.45 (95% CI: 1.08-1.93),p=0.013;HR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.10-1.42),p<0.001, respectively}, whereas low LDL-C (<70 mg/dL) showed higher VD risk in those not taking cholesterol-lowering medication [HR: 3.02 (95% CI: 1.73-5.27),p<0.001].Low HDL-C (≤40 mg/dL) was associated with increased AD and VD risk in non-users. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The progressive decrement of neuropsychological performance is associated with HVL long before the emergence of clinically overt symptoms. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

On November 8-9, 2007, a meeting entitled "Setting a Public Health Research Agenda for Down Syndrome" was held to review current knowledge, identify gaps, and develop priorities for future public health research related to Down syndrome. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

People with Down syndrome (DS) are at high risk for developing Alzheimer disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

This study provided a preliminary examination of indices of obstructive sleep apsnea (OSA) and sleep disruptions in adults with Down syndrome (DS), and their associations with Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology and symptomatology. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 93 Evidence: moderate

Demonstrated utility of the mCRT warrants further investigation into comparisons between the A and B versions, free versus cued recall and changes in performance over time to better understand sensitivity for tracking memory decline over time based on age and AD clinical status. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 272 Evidence: moderate

The objective of this analysis was to develop a nonlinear disease progression model, using an expanded set of covariates that captures the longitudinal Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scores. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The most important predictors of having a diagnosis of ADRD by the start of care OASIS assessment were a prior discharge diagnosis of ADRD among those admitted from an inpatient setting, and frequently exhibiting symptoms of confusion. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Dementia Diagnosis Underreporting and Care Engagement and Planning Among Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-08-26

Among 6158 person-waves with a claims-based dementia diagnosis from 3278 PWPD (3134 [50.9%] aged 65-84 years; 4282 [69.5%] female; 1176 [19.1%] non-Hispanic Black, 617 [10.0%] Hispanic, and 4256 [69.1%] non-Hispanic White), the adjusted proportion not reporting their diagnosis was 42% (95% CI, 40%-43%) among all respondents and 67% (95% CI, 64%-69%) among self-respondents. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Approximately 2% of those aged ≥60 years had dementia, lower than published estimates. 5 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Evidence: moderate

MAs were younger, more likely to be female, less educated, had higher ADI scores, performed worse on trails B (all p < 0.05), and had lower prevalence of APOE4 + when compared to NHWs (p < 0.0001). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,312 Evidence: moderate

The cluster analysis identified 3 distinct groups: Group 1 was low resource/high distress (n = 215); Group 2 was high resource/low distress (n = 248); and Group 3 was low resource/low distress (n = 353; Figure 1). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 215 Evidence: moderate

The Centiloid method demonstrates strong intertracer and interscanner harmonization when standardized to the 11C-Pittsburgh compound B reference, with high correlation (r2 > 0.9) across 18F-labeled tracers, including florbetapir, flutemetamol, and florbetaben. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Higher AD-PRS was associated with faster CD in the full clinical cohort and in biomarker subset, independently of APOE genotype. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 7,233 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