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 2,876–2,900 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 116 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.

Additionally, growing evidence suggests that neuroinflammation may modulate the effects of tau spread on cognitive impairment in AD [Peretti, Débora E., et al., Brain 147.12 (2024): 4094‐4104.]. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 354 Evidence: moderate

Digital cognitive phenotyping enhances risk stratification in preclinical Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2026-09-01

Four cognitive phenotypes emerged. One phenotype (18% of Aβ+ participants) showed the steepest cognitive decline, highest progression on the CDR, greater baseline medial temporal tau, and fastest neocortical tau accumulation over 4.6 years (hazard ratio [HR] for decline ≈ 2.9). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Diagnostic challenges stem from overlapping symptoms of co-occurring neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, rendering standard dementia tools insufficient. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The clinical prognosis of cognitively unimpaired individuals with positive PET biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

These results provide clear evidence that CU older adults with both amyloid plaques and tau aggregates measured with PET will develop cognitive impairments if the disease is not stopped. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Family caregivers provide essential care and support for individuals living with dementia, yet their contributions and needs are often unrecognized within formal health care systems. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Person-centered care provides a critical framework for dementia support in long-term care facilities, emphasizing attention to each resident's evolving needs, personal history, preferences, and values. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Of 289,649 included participants, 137,480 (47.5 %) were male, and the mean age was 56.6 ± 8.1 years. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Predictive performance was comparable across algorithms, with R² ranging from 0.201 to 0.361, highest in the MCI_All dataset. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,958 Evidence: moderate

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a neurodegenerative disorder primarily affecting the frontal and temporal lobes, leading to significant impairments in executive function, social behavior, and emotional regulation. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The results indicated that residence location, alcohol consumption, life satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and education level are key factors influencing the risk of MCI among older adults with functional disability. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

BackgroundPatients with dementia face driving difficulties and, at some point, cease driving. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) presents a significant global health challenge, necessitating accurate and early prediction methods for effective intervention and treatment planning. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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

Among 500 dementia patients (mean age 78.3 ± 7.2 years), Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed significantly earlier pneumonia onset in severe dementia patients (log-rank P < 0.001), with Cox regression showing that severe dementia conferred triple the pneumonia risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.15-4.21) and that swallowing dysfunction independently increased the hazard ratio 3.45-fold (95% CI: 2.61-4.55); aspiration pneumonia accelerated cognitive decline (β = -2.35, 95% CI: -3.12 to -1.58). 4 key findings →

Design: retrospective cohort Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a major public health concern in societies with increasingly ageing populations. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Upon initiation of guanfacine, patients with delirium had a reduction in daily antipsychotic exposure and a decrease in positive delirium screens. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 56 Evidence: moderate

PurposeDelirium is a common yet preventable complication of hospitalization, surgery and illness that is associated with poor outcomes. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Pulse pressure, but not mean arterial pressure, significantly mediated the relationship between age and white matter hyperintensity load. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Recent positive results of three phase III anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody trials are transforming the landscape of disease-modifying therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease, following several decades of failures. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Genetic variation in the APOE gene and variation in chromosome 21 genotypes, including the APP locus, may influence age-associated cognitive decline in adults with Down syndrome. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) has fostered collaboration among researchers around the world, catalyzing innovation and accelerating progress in the field. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer disease (AD) is characterized by amyloid-β plaques (A), tau tangles (T), and neurodegeneration (N), collectively defining the ATN framework. 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