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

28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.

Find studies

Showing 351–375 of 1,152 studies (page 15 of 47) · 28,580 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)

Showing 1,152 studies tagged cohort — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

Subjects

Authors

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

Institutions

From OpenAlex; 14,058 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.

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.

Potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia in identical twins

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 2006-04-01

Potentially modifiable risk factors from early and midlife, with a cumulative detrimental effect on the brain, contribute to risk of dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: case-control study Participants: 310 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Association between hypoglycemia and dementia in a biracial cohort of older adults with diabetes mellitus

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2013-07-01

During the 12-year follow-up period, 61 participants (7.8%) had a reported hypoglycemic event, and 148 (18.9%) developed dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 783 Evidence: moderate

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

Metabolic cardiovascular syndrome and risk of dementia in Japanese-American elderly men. The Honolulu-Asia aging study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology 2000-10-01

Cardiovascular risk factors often cluster into a metabolic syndrome that may increase the risk of dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Tooth loss as a risk factor for dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 observational studies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. BMC psychiatry 2018-10-20

Future well-designed longitudinal researches examining the direct and indirect relationship between tooth loss and dementia risk are encouraged. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

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

Circadian disturbances in Alzheimer's disease progression: a prospective observational cohort study of community-based older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. The lancet. Healthy longevity 2020-11-12

We used Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regressions to assess whether circadian disturbances predict an increased risk of incident Alzheimer's dementia and conversion of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

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

Dietary fatty acids and the risk of Parkinson disease: the Rotterdam study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2005-06-01

Unsaturated fatty acids are important constituents of neuronal cell membranes and have neuroprotective, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,289 Evidence: moderate

Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription

Elevated dementia risk, cognitive decline, and hippocampal atrophy in multisite chronic pain

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2023-02-21

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

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

Association of metformin, sulfonylurea and insulin use with brain structure and function and risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease: Pooled analysis from 5 cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. PloS one 2019-02-15

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

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

Association of orthostatic hypotension with incident dementia, stroke, and cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Neurology 2018-07-25

We analyzed data from 11,709 participants without a history of coronary heart disease or stroke who attended the baseline examination (1987-1989) of the prospective Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. 4 key findings →

Participants: 11,709 Evidence: moderate

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

Relationship of Cigarette Smoking and Time of Quitting with Incident Dementia and Cognitive Decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2019-11-01

Understanding how dementia risk is impacted by timing of smoking cessation has public health implications for prevention efforts. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,347 Evidence: moderate

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

Association of Poor Sleep Burden in Middle Age and Older Adults With Risk for Delirium During Hospitalization

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences 2022-03-01

Delirium is a distressing neurocognitive disorder recently linked to sleep disturbances. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 818 Evidence: moderate

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

From across this tag

10 of the 1,143 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.

↑ 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. Show only studies that are free to read

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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), 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.

1,034 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 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