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 2,601–2,625 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 105 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.

Amyloidosis in the absence of neurodegeneration did not have an adverse impact on practice effects or the 30-month cognitive trajectories. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Language decline is usually the fastest and predominant change in primary progressive aphasia (PPA). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major neurodegenerative disease and the most common cause of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Causal pathways corresponding to all 4 hypotheses were supported. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches pose a great opportunity for individualized, pre-symptomatic disease diagnosis which plays a key role in the context of personalized, predictive, and finally preventive medicine (PPPM). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Plasma microRNA biomarkers for detection of mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Aging 2012-09-01

Early stages of many neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, vascular and frontotemporal dementia, and Parkinson's disease, are frequently associated with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Cognitive decline in older adults contributes to reduced ability to perform daily tasks and continued disuse leads to muscle weakness and potentiates functional loss. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The current study examined the interactive effect of type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer disease (AD) risk factors on the rate of functional decline in cognitively normal participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 69 Evidence: moderate

The apolipoprotein E (APOE)ε4 allele is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset AD and is associated with aberrant cerebrospinal fluid levels (CSF) of total tau (t-tau), phosphorylated tau (p-tau), and amyloid-β (Aβ). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

It is largely unknown how alcohol use affects the risk of Alzheimer`s disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 301 Evidence: moderate

A decline in physical and/or cognitive function is a common feature of aging, and frailty has been shown to be associated with cognitive impairment and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

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

of 74,486 decedents (60.5% women; mean age 87.1 years (standard deviation: 7.1)), 82.6% had at least one ED visit in their last year of life. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

= 0.041). Socioeconomic status and residential area are associated with long-term survival in patients with EOD. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 3,825 Evidence: moderate

ADI groups differed by sex, ethnoracial background, and MMSE scores. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 755 Evidence: moderate

The study included 197 patients in whom lecanemab infusions had been started (lecanemab group), as well as 173 patients in whom lecanemab had been ordered but not yet started, who were combined with 1139 research participants with cognitive impairment from the Knight ADRC cohort to form the untreated control group with cognitive impairment (n=1312). 5 key findings →

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

RBC DHA was associated with a positive (improved) global cognition (PACC) rate of change (estimate: 0.011; 95% CI: 0.001, 0.021; P = 0.024). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 323 Evidence: moderate

This special issue of Alzheimer's & Dementia celebrates the accomplishments of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) project as it approaches its 20th anniversary in 2024, supported by funding from the National Institute on Aging. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among 5,145 participants included in the analyses, 747 (14.5 %) reported hearing loss, including 207 Black adults and 199 White adults. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,145 Evidence: moderate

In the complex realm of cognitive disorders, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) are the two most prevalent dementia types, presenting entangled symptoms yet requiring distinct treatment approaches. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

These lessons emphasize the importance of ensuring tests are feasible across both high-income countries and LMICs, maintaining consistency within studies and over time, and designing comprehensive cognitive batteries for improved measurement precision of general and domain-specific phenotypes. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Nearly half (48%) of older adults experienced an inpatient admission, and nearly all (92%) experienced a potentially burdensome intervention. 5 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