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 326–350 of 542 studies in Long-term cohort studies (page 14 of 22) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Cigarette smoking is associated with increased risk for myriad health consequences including cognitive decline and dementia, but research on the link between smoking and brain structure is nascent. 4 key findings →

Participants: 19,615 Evidence: low

Confirmatory factor analysis of the ADNI Neuropsychological Battery

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Brain imaging and behavior 2012-12-01

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is a large multi-center study designed to develop optimized methods for acquiring longitudinal neuroimaging, cognitive, and biomarker measures of AD progression in a large cohort of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment, and healthy controls. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The association of testosterone concentrations with dementia risk remains uncertain. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The present study investigated the ability of the Multilingual Naming Test (MINT), a picture naming test recently added to the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's (NACC) Uniform Data Set neuropsychological test battery, to detect naming impairment (i.e., dysnomia) across stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 3,981 Evidence: low

Visinin-like protein-1 (VILIP-1) and chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3L1 or YKL-40) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are newly discovered markers indicating neuronal damage and microglial activation, respectively. 4 key findings →

Participants: 121 Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia, characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-beta (Aβ) and neurofibrillary tangles. 4 key findings →

Participants: 16 Evidence: low

In recent years, several high-dimensional, accurate, and effective classification methods have been proposed for the automatic discrimination of the subject between Alzheimer's disease (AD) or its prodromal phase {i.e., mild cognitive impairment (MCI)} and healthy control (HC) persons based on T1-weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI). 4 key findings →

Participants: 326 Evidence: low

White matter hyperintensities (WMH) are among the most common radiological abnormalities in the ageing population and an established risk factor for stroke and dementia. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Higher AD PRS was associated with increased risks of all-cause dementia (HR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.70-1.79, P < 0.001) and AD (HR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.95-2.09, P < 0.001), with stronger effects in women for both outcomes when considering the main AD PRS which was related to APOE4 status. 4 key findings →

Participants: 249 Evidence: low

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

MASLD was significantly associated with smaller volumes of total grey matter and subcortical grey matter (p < 0.05) and reduced Alzheimer's disease (AD)-signature cortical thickness (multivariable-adjusted β = -0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.07, -0.01). 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 29,195 Evidence: low

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

Shorter LTL was associated with an increased risk of NDDs, including Alzheimer's disease (HR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.40-0.67, P < 0.001), dementia in AD (HR: 0.53, 95% CI 0.39-0.73, P < 0.001), unspecified dementia (HR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.95, P < 0.05), degenerative diseases of the nervous system (including other specified degenerative diseases such as circumscribed brain atrophy and senile degeneration of the brain) (HR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.84, P < 0.01), extrapyramidal and movement disorders (including other specified extrapyramidal and movement disorders such as a range of tremors, chorea, tics, and other abnormal involuntary movements) (HR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.82, P < 0.01), and mental and behavioral disorders due to use of alcohol (HR: 0.46, 95% CI 0.38-0.55, P < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Participants: 459,902 Evidence: moderate

Our findings highlight the altered phases of swallowing in patients with dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 158 Evidence: low

A Clinical Task Force, composed of clinical leaders from Alzheimer's Disease Centers (ADC), was convened by the National Institute on Aging to develop a uniform set of assessment procedures to characterize individuals with mild Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment in comparison with nondemented aging.

The cardiovascular health study: Design and rationale

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Annals of Epidemiology 1991-02-01

The Cardiovascular Health Study is a population-based, longitudinal study designed to evaluate factors related to the onset, course, and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke in adults aged 65 years and older. 4 key findings →

Ventricular enlargement and white matter lesions are frequent findings on cerebral magnetic resonance imaging scans of elderly subjects. 4 key findings →

Participants: 90 Evidence: moderate

In this article, the authors aim to maximally utilize multimodality neuroimaging and genetic data for identifying Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its prodromal status, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), from normal aging subjects. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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