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 2,476–2,500 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 100 of 127) · 27,780 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)

This list as a page: Cohort or longitudinal study in the library →

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.

Antipsychotic therapy and short-term serious events in older adults with dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Archives of internal medicine 2008-05-01

Serious events, as indicated by a hospital admission or death, are frequent following the short-term use of antipsychotic drugs in older adults with dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

A comparison of caregivers for elderly stroke and dementia victims

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1992-09-01

Elderly co-resident caregivers for stroke and dementia patients experience similar degrees of burden and high levels of psychological morbidity. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The Minority Aging Research Study (MARS) is a longitudinal, epidemiologic cohort study of decline in cognitive function and risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in older African Americans, with brain donation after death added as an optional component for those willing to consider organ donation. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Baseline cognition was poorer in individuals born and residing in the South, particularly those attending desegregated schools at age 12. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL), also called presbycusis, is a progressive disorder affecting hearing functions and among the elderly has been recognized as the third most frequent condition. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Delayed discharge is associated with higher hospital costs and complication rates especially nosocomial infections. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

How early can we predict Alzheimer's disease using computational anatomy?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurobiology of aging 2013-07-26

Computational anatomy with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is well established as a noninvasive biomarker of Alzheimer's disease (AD); however, there is less certainty about its dependency on the staging of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Does mild cognitive impairment always lead to dementia? A review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Journal of the neurological sciences 2016-07-26

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has often been studied in its association with dementia, yet higher rates of reversion to normal cognition than progression to dementia suggest that MCI does not necessarily lead to dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Previous studies reported the value of blood-based biomarkers in predicting Alzheimer disease (AD) progression among individuals with different disease stages. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Orexin, Sleep, and Cognition in Alzheimer Disease: Non-REM Oscillatory Activity and Neural Resilience

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Neurology 2026-07-14

Sleep spindles (SPs) and slow oscillations (SOs) are linked to cognition and neurodegeneration; however, their relationship with CSF orexin concentrations in symptomatic AD has not been characterized. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Self-efficacy is the belief that one can perform a specific task or behaviour and is a modifiable attribute which has been shown to influence health behaviours. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Research in gerontology has demonstrated mixed effects of social support on cognitive decline and dementia: Social support has been shown to be protective in some studies, but not in others. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Given the recent acknowledgement of the complex mixed pathologies that contribute to the clinical expression of dementia, various cohort studies have aimed to examine Alzheimer's disease and cerebrovascular disease as comorbid pathologies, with neuroimaging playing a central role in these studies. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Of 57 participants (mean age ± SD = 66.6 ± 7.2 years; female = 52.6%), 38.6% (n = 22) had MCI-level functional impairment and 17.5% (n = 10) had dementia-level functional impairment. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate

Predicting onset of Alzheimer disease symptoms with a plasma %p‐tau217 clock

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Two independently constructed %p‐tau217 plasma clocks had strong correlations with actual time measures and were consistent across the two cohorts. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 420 Evidence: moderate

Hearing aid use was associated with a modestly lower risk of probable dementia overall (Hazard Ratios, HR, 0.91), but the association was confined to participants reporting improvements in hearing (HR 0.86), with no apparent benefit among those reporting poor improvement in hearing (HR 0.98). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 61,089 Evidence: moderate

BackgroundIndividuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of developing both vascular and Alzheimer's dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 128 Evidence: moderate

(DIADEM) Digital Assessment of Auditory Perception in Dementia : Study Protocol

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

We will assess the utility of auditory perceptual tests, both alone and combined with blood-based biomarkers (pTau217 and NfL), for diagnosis and prognosis in individuals with cognitive symptoms. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 600 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