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 1,026–1,050 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 42 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.

Two longitudinal studies with different populations demonstrated that loneliness was a risk factor for the development of the pain, depression, and fatigue symptom cluster over time. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 115 Evidence: moderate

Evaluation of dementia in the cardiovascular health cognition study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Neuroepidemiology 2003-01-01

The CHS has developed a methodology for longitudinal studies of dementia in large cohorts and represents the largest study of dementia including cognitive testing, MRI and genetic markers. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 5,888 Evidence: moderate

Growing evidence suggests that fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) likely increases the risks of dementia, yet little is known about the relative contributions of different constituents. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Sleep Duration and White Matter Quality in Middle-Aged Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Sleep 2016-09-01

Study objectives Sleep duration has been associated with risk of dementia and stroke, but few studies have investigated the relationship between sleep duration and brain MRI measures, particularly in middle age. 3 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's Disease Microbiome Is Associated with Dysregulation of the Anti-Inflammatory P-Glycoprotein Pathway

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. mBio 2019-05-07

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia, has long been associated with bacterial infections and inflammation-causing immunosenescence. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 108 Evidence: moderate

Patterns of chronic multimorbidity in the elderly population

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2009-02-01

In persons with multimorbidity, there exists co-occurrence of diseases beyond chance, which clinicians need to take into account in their daily practice. 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 1,099 Evidence: moderate

Progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia in clinic- vs community-based cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Archives of neurology 2009-09-01

These findings add to the growing literature to suggest that the degree of functional impairment at baseline is an important predictor of conversion to dementia and may help explain differences in findings between epidemiological and clinic-based studies. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 28 Evidence: moderate

These results demonstrate an important role of clusterin in the pathogenesis of AD and suggest that alterations in amyloid chaperone proteins may be a biologically relevant peripheral signature of AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Prognosis of mild cognitive impairment in early Parkinson disease: the Norwegian ParkWest study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2013-05-01

Significantly more patients with MCI than without MCI at baseline (10 of 37 [27.0%] vs 1 of 145 [0.7%]; relative risk, 39.2 [95% CI, 5.2-296.5]; P Conclusions and relevance Mild cognitive impairment at PD diagnosis predicts a highly increased risk for early dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 182 Evidence: moderate

Low daytime SBP was independently associated with a greater progression of cognitive decline in older patients with dementia and MCI among those treated with AHDs. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 172 Evidence: moderate

The prevalence of A+T+N+F+ profile was 66.24% in clinically diagnosed AD dementia patients; similarly, the majority of individuals with reduced FDG-PET were AD dementia subjects. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 551 Evidence: moderate

Plasma clusterin concentration is associated with longitudinal brain atrophy in mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. NeuroImage 2011-07-28

Recent genetic and proteomic studies demonstrate that clusterin/apolipoprotein-J is associated with risk, pathology, and progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 139 Evidence: moderate

Identifying a clinical distinction between the invariably lethal prion disease Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and nonprion rapidly progressive dementias is important and sometimes difficult; thus, reliable tools for diagnosis are in great demand. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 30 Evidence: moderate

The amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) framework uses cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of total tau (tTau) as a marker of neurodegeneration and CSF levels of phosphorylated tau 181 (pTau181) as a marker of tau tangles. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 465 Evidence: moderate

This study aimed to examine whether baseline CSF measures of Alzheimer disease (AD)-related pathology are associated with the time to onset of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and whether these associations differ by age, sex, Apolipoprotein E ( ApoE4 ) status, and proximal (≤7 years) vs distal (>7 years) time to symptom onset. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 273 Evidence: moderate

The trajectories of core Alzheimer disease (AD) cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers and the concurrent cognitive changes across the clinical spectrum remain unclear yet are important for clinical trial design. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 197 Evidence: moderate

Incidence and risk of dementia. The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. American journal of epidemiology 1998-03-01

To assess age-, sex-, and subtype-specific incidence rates of dementia and to calculate the risk of dementia, the authors performed a large, community-based, prospective cohort study on dementia as part of the Rotterdam Study. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 7,046 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