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 451–475 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 19 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.

Our prediction model was internally evaluated based on five-fold cross-validation on discrimination and calibration, and it was further compared with existing prediction scales. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,416 Evidence: moderate

If the associations we observed are causal, then air pollution from traffic might be an important risk factor for vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease. 3 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,806 Evidence: moderate

The potential determinants of cognitive decline identified in this study, in particular modifiable risk factors, should be tested in the context of randomised controlled trials. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 626 Evidence: high

For early detection of Alzheimer's disease, it is important to find biomarkers with predictive value for disease progression and clinical manifestations, such as cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 282 Evidence: moderate

Increasing evidence suggests an important role of liver function in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,581 Evidence: moderate

An increased tau positron emission tomography (PET) signal in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) has been observed in older individuals in the absence of amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,093 Evidence: moderate

In this single-center observational study, we included all individuals who visited the Alzheimer Center Amsterdam and had a clinical diagnosis of subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or probable AD dementia and were A+. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 520 Evidence: moderate

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is an ongoing, longitudinal, multicenter study designed to develop clinical, imaging, genetic, and biochemical biomarkers for the early detection and tracking of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 400 Evidence: moderate

Peripheral GFAP and NfL as early biomarkers for dementia: longitudinal insights from the UK Biobank

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. BMC medicine 2024-05-13

Peripheral glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) are sensitive markers of neuroinflammation and neuronal damage. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 48,542 Evidence: moderate

There were 21 603 to 51 236 patients per year (total for 2010-2020, 381 488 patients) in the OAC-eligible incident AF cohort (mean [SD] age, 77.2 [6.1] to 77.4 [6.8] years; 13 871 [51.8%] to 22 901 [49.8%] women). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 236 Evidence: moderate

Antipsychotic initiation and use were common during hospitalization, most often for delirium, and individuals were frequently discharged on these medications. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 17,775 Evidence: moderate

Long-term adherence to the MIND diet was moderately associated with better verbal memory in later life. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 16,058 Evidence: moderate

High monounsaturated fatty acids intake protects against age-related cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neurology 1999-05-01

In an elderly population of Southern Italy with a typical Mediterranean diet, high MUFA intakes appeared to be protective against age-related cognitive decline. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 704 Evidence: high

Higher "vegetables-fruits" and "snacks-drinks-milk products" pattern scores were associated with reduced risk of cognitive impairment in Chinese older women in Hong Kong. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 221 Evidence: moderate

Future interventions should address subjective fatigue when managing cognitive and functional abilities in community-dwelling older adults. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: high

In this cohort of French older adults, higher adherence to the French MIND diet was associated with a lower dementia risk and with preserved white matter microstructure. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,412 Evidence: moderate

Association of Antipsychotic Use With Mortality Risk in Patients With Parkinson Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2016-05-01

The use of APs by patients with dementia in the general population is associated with increased mortality, but whether this risk extends to patients with PD remains unknown. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 7,877 Evidence: moderate

In our large population-based sample, frailty syndrome was a short-term predictor of overall dementia and VaD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,581 Evidence: moderate

Economic Burden of Postoperative Neurocognitive Disorders Among US Medicare Patients

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. JAMA network open 2020-07-01

The findings of this cohort study suggest that among older Medicare patients undergoing surgical treatment, a diagnosis of a PND was associated with an increase in health care costs for up to 1 year following the surgical procedure. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 473 Evidence: moderate

Our findings suggest that older patients with reduced preoperative cognitive functions or who develop postoperative delirium are at risk of developing dementia within 5 years after cardiac surgery. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 114 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