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 851–875 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 35 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.

The MDS-ADL Long Form scale detected clinically meaningful change in physical function in a large cohort of long-stay nursing home residents with moderate to severe dementia, supporting its use as a research tool in future studies. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 7,001 Evidence: moderate

Predicting cognitive decline with deep learning of brain metabolism and amyloid imaging

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Behavioural brain research 2018-02-14

For effective treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is important to identify subjects who are most likely to exhibit rapid cognitive decline. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 139 Evidence: moderate

Low-Value Care at the Actionable Level of Individual Health Systems

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA internal medicine 2021-11-01

The findings of this large cohort study suggest that system-level measurement and reporting of specific low-value services is feasible, enables cross-system comparisons, and reveals a broad range of low-value care use. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Preventable hospital readmissions have been recognized as indicators of hospital quality, a source of increased healthcare expenditures, and a burden for patients, families, and caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 5,133 Evidence: moderate

Men, racial and ethnic minority individuals, older adults, and those with language barriers are at increased risk for undertreatment of depression. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Neuropsychiatric Ramifications of Severe COVID-19 and Other Severe Acute Respiratory Infections

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. JAMA psychiatry 2022-07-01

In this cohort study of data from 8.38 million adults (4.18 million women, 4.20 million men; mean [SD] age 49.18 [18.45] years); 16 679 (0.02%) survived a hospital admission for SARI, and 32 525 (0.03%) survived a hospital admission for COVID-19. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Careful consideration of model specification and the profound effects of mortality selection in the older adult population is essential when investigating the relationship between aging-related diseases such as cancer and AD. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 92,425 Evidence: moderate

Layer II of the entorhinal cortex contains the cells of origin for the perforant path, plays a critical role in memory processing, and consistently degenerates in end-stage Alzheimer's disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 29 Evidence: moderate

Deamidation-related blood biomarkers show promise for early diagnostics of neurodegeneration

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Biomarker research 2022-12-27

Deamidation products of blood albumin were significantly elevated in vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia (P < 0.05), but less so in PD. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 140 Evidence: moderate

ARIA were infrequent. In donanemab-treated patients, mildly symptomatic ARIA-E occurred in 10% (2/20) and asymptomatic ARIA-H in 15% (3/20). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Plasma p-tau217 levels measured using Lumipulse and Simoa assays were highly correlated (p < 0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Among participants with CDR 0 (n = 259), those with amyloid (A+) and/or tau pathology (T+, N+) showed similar performance on most cognitive tests compared to participants with A-T-N-. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 316 Evidence: moderate

DNS-br total score and majority of the 11 DNS-br neurocognitive subdomain scores were significantly associated with FDG-PET resilience signature, PIB ratio, cerebral gray matter and white matter volume after adjusting for multiple testing. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 283 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