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 2,751–2,775 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 111 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.

Early identification of individuals at increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a pre-dementia state, can provide a critical window for prompt intervention to prevent or reverse disease progression. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 87 Evidence: moderate

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are progressive adult-onset neurodegenerative diseases with overlapping pathological and genetic origins. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Males were more likely than females to present with two or more core DLB clinical features 2 years prior to obtaining a diagnosis of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Preclinical Catecholaminergic Biomarkers of Central Lewy Body Diseases

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Journal of Clinical Neurology 2026-01-01

In the central Lewy body diseases (LBDs) Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), by the time parkinsonism or cognitive dysfunction manifests, substantial central neurodegeneration has already occurred. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a leading neurodegenerative disorder, progresses from an intermediary stage known as Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), characterized by measurable cognitive decline with retained functional independence. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

All included PD patients were cognitively normal at baseline and had 6 years of follow-up assessments available for cognitive status. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 47 Evidence: moderate

Among 558 amnestic MCI participants (168 ChEI users), ChEI users exhibited higher risk of progression to AD dementia (hazard ratio = 1.77, 95% confidence interval: 1.15 to 2.73, p = 0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

< 0.001). Shape features demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy for conversion, with areas under the curve of 0.891 at baseline and 0.898 at 2 years. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 180 Evidence: moderate

The PD-MCI nonreversion group had greater p-tau:amyloid beta and t-tau:amyloid beta ratios relative to the PD-MCI reversion group. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 430 Evidence: moderate

Disruptions in GABAergic activity and alterations in gamma oscillations are key pathological features of AD associated with amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 127 Evidence: moderate

In this retrospective, confounder-adjusted study, anticoagulation was associated with slower cognitive/functional decline and lower hospitalization/mortality risk in AF and dementia patients. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 291 Evidence: moderate

Over a median follow-up period of 4.33 years, 637 participants (7.27%) developed dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 8,758 Evidence: moderate

Odds ratios for death, dementia, and delirium using anticholinergic-polypharmacy pseudoscales (median = 1.09-1.10) were greater than those of general-polypharmacy pseudoscales (1.05-1.06). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The FCAAS-4 achieved a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.74 (95% confidence interval: 0.71-0.77) and a Harrell generalized c-index of 0.72 (0.70-0.75). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The study included 25 patients with iCAA (age, 44±11 years), 31 patients with sCAA (age, 75±5 years), 28 patients with AD (age, 71±8 years) and 30 controls (age, 72±8 years) from 9 case descriptions and 1 cohort study. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate

Neuropathologic Correlates of Seizures in Patients With Alzheimer Disease and Dementia With Lewy Bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Neurology 2026-07-01

= 0.015). In this autopsy-confirmed cohort, seizure susceptibility was associated with advanced tau pathology and CAA in AD. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

A covariate-adjusted linear mixed model for the intention-to-treat sample (N = 353; mean age = 69.7) revealed a significant positive change in dementia literacy at 6 months (standardized change = 0.246; p = 0.012) and a significant improvement in self-efficacy at 12 months (standardized change = 0.157; p = 0.008). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 353 Evidence: moderate

Significant improvement over time was observed in aggregated domain specific composite scores of episodic and semantic memory and spatial abilities. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 155 Evidence: high

Three cohorts of interdisciplinary scholars (N = 53) have started and two have completed DEM-PCCT. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 53 Evidence: moderate

BackgroundThe progression of cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) leads to cognitive decline, which can be categorized into subcortical vascular mild cognitive impairment (svMCI) and vascular dementia (VaD).ObjectiveThis research aimed to examine the structural changes in gray (GM) and white matter (WM) in the brain across the disease spectrum. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 26 Evidence: moderate

This study aimed to examine the associations between nursing home (NH) quality and prevalence of newly admitted NH residents with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), and to assess the extent to which market-level wages for certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and state Medicaid behavioral and mental health add-on policy may influence such associations. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 2,777 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