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 1–25 of 33 studies in Drug development of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 1 of 2) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 33 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.

What “Drug development” covers

Drug development — Candidate treatments on their way through the pipeline, from the laboratory to early human trials.

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.

Antihypertensive drugs decrease risk of Alzheimer disease: Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Neurology 2013-08-02

Diuretic, ARB, and ACE-I use was, in addition to and/or independently of mean systolic blood pressure, associated with reduced risk of AD dementia in participants with normal cognition, while only diuretic use was associated with reduced risk in participants with MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,928 Evidence: moderate

Each matched cohort included 23,386 (semaglutide vs sitagliptin), 22,584 (vs empagliflozin), and 19,206 (vs glipizide) patients. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 23,386 Evidence: moderate

In patients without baseline cognitive dysfunction, short-term data are most compatible with no adverse effect of statins on cognition, and long-term data may support a beneficial role for statins in the prevention of dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 23,443 Evidence: high

This study provides evidence that the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists may extend beyond their known metabolic and cardioprotective benefits to include neuroprotection, associated with a decreased risk of developing various neurodegenerative disorders. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 102,935 Evidence: moderate

Overall, 214,442 matched individuals initiated GLP-1 RAs or DPP4i (109,731 women, mean age 58.6 years [SD 12], and mean HbA1c 7.7% [1.4]). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), originally developed for type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity, are increasingly recognized for their significant impact on the central nervous system, leading to reports of both beneficial and adverse mental health effects. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: high

Metformin mitigates dementia risk among individuals with type 2 diabetes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Clinical diabetes and endocrinology 2024-05-10

This mini-narrative review explores the relationship between diabetes and dementia, focusing on the potential mitigating role of metformin in reducing cognitive decline among individuals with type 2 diabetes. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high

Cohort Profile Update: The Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP)

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. International Journal of Epidemiology 2022-02-25

Therefore, respective software was developed in-house.8,9 Segmentation results are then analysed for potential associations with disease risks and to establish reference intervals of organ size and function.10 SHIP is also used as a basis for meta-research with a particular focus on incidental MRI findings and their effects on study participants.11,12 With its large amount of standardized data and the option to internally replicate findings from SHIP-START using data of the independent SHIP-TREND, the project offers good opportunities to apply new bioinformatical tools to mine the data and gain new insights into risk factors and pathomechanisms. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The increase in gray matter volume in these areas, which various neuroimaging and postmortem neuropathology studies have implicated in the neuropathophysiology of bipolar disorder, suggests that the observed effects may be linked to clinical response. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 28 Evidence: moderate

Refractory Status Epilepticus in a Patient With Aducanumab-Induced Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. Neurology 2024-08-09

The patient was participating in an extended open-label trial of aducanumab when she was admitted to hospital for focal seizures and ARIA in 2 noncontiguous regions of the left frontal and occipital lobes. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Antidiabetic medications and risk of cognitive disorders in type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. PLoS ONE 2026-08-24

Among 1,528,885 adults with type 2 diabetes (mean age, 58 years; 49.2% women), GLP-1 receptor agonists plus metformin were associated with lower incidence of vascular dementia (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.37-0.57), mild cognitive disorder (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95), and Alzheimer disease (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.31-0.70). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,528,885 Evidence: moderate

Clinicopathologic Evaluation of Amyloid Clearance in Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. JAMA 2026-07-12

The long-term efficacy of amyloid-targeting therapies hinges on their ability to slow downstream neuropathologic change, but little is known about the influence of amyloid clearance on tau pathology and neurodegeneration. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high

GLP-1RA use was associated with lower risk of dementia (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71–0.91) and Alzheimer’s disease (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59–0.98) compared to DPP4is. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 12,351 Evidence: moderate

GLP-1RA use was associated with a significantly lower risk of dementia [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.91, P = .001] and Alzheimer's disease (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.98, P = .033) compared with DPP4i use. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Conference report: dementia research and care and its impact in Switzerland

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Swiss medical weekly 2020-11-01

In October 2019, a Swiss panel of experts met for the Dementia Summit in Brunnen, Switzerland, to discuss the latest scientific findings on basic and clinical research, as well as practical and political approaches to the challenges of dementia disorders in Switzerland. 4 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. 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 (3.7% 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