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 1,476–1,500 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 60 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.

One of the most challenging problems in modern neuroimaging is detailed characterization of neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

CSF tau protein phosphorylated at threonine 231 correlates with cognitive decline in MCI subjects

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2002-08-01

In this longitudinal study of 77 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the authors analyzed whether levels of tau protein phosphorylated at threonine 231 (p-tau(231)) in CSF correlate with progression of cognitive decline. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 77 Evidence: moderate

Neuronal hypertrophy in asymptomatic Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology 2008-06-01

The pathologic changes of Alzheimer disease (AD) evolve very gradually over decades before the disease becomes clinically manifest. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 15 Evidence: moderate

Rates of progression in mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2002-10-01

The lack of effective predictors of the rate of dementia progression extends to the very earliest stages of the disease, including what is often called MCI. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 289 Evidence: moderate

ATN profiles among cognitively normal individuals and longitudinal cognitive outcomes

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2019-03-06

Pooling data across 4 cohort studies, 814 cognitively normal participants (mean baseline age = 59.6 years) were classified into 8 ATN groups using baseline CSF levels of β-amyloid 1-42 as a measure of amyloid (A), phosphorylated tau 181 as a measure of tau (T), and total tau as a measure of neurodegeneration (N). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

CSF biomarker changes precede symptom onset of mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2013-10-16

This study evaluated longitudinal CSF biomarker measures collected when participants were cognitively normal to determine the magnitude and time course of biomarker changes before the onset of clinical symptoms in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 265 Evidence: moderate

Association of midlife vascular risk and AD biomarkers with subsequent cognitive decline

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2020-09-28

At baseline, participants (n = 168) were cognitively normal and primarily middle-aged (mean 56.4 years, SD 10.9 years) and had both vascular risk factor status and proximal CSF biomarkers available. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 168 Evidence: moderate

Sleep abnormalities are prevalent in Alzheimer's disease, with sleep quality already impaired at its preclinical stage. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,168 Evidence: moderate

New technology is convenient for measuring blood total tau concentrations and provides a unique and increased opportunity for early intervention to slow cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,159 Evidence: moderate

Because of the aging population and a rise in the number of stroke survivors, the prevalence of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) is increasing. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 280 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive dysfunction, including dementia and delirium, is prevalent in geriatric emergency department (ED) patients, but often remains undetected. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 163 Evidence: moderate

Delirium is a profound neuropsychiatric disturbance precipitated by acute illness. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 465 Evidence: moderate

We recruited 825 individuals from the CHARLS sample and 766 subjects from hospitals in six provinces and cities in China. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 825 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive impairment is one of the earliest, most common, and most disabling non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 360 Evidence: moderate

Although memory complaints are associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease in persons with cognitive impairment as well as in persons with normal cognition, they are commonly considered of less importance than objective cognitive measures. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 7,983 Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Lewy body diseases (LBD), e.g., Parkinson's disease (PD) dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), are common causes of geriatric cognitive impairments. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 389 Evidence: moderate

Plasma proteins affect biological processes and are common drug targets but their role in the development of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias remains unclear. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Better diet quality relates to larger brain tissue volumes: The Rotterdam Study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 61 out of 100. Neurology 2018-05-16

From the population-based Rotterdam Study, 4,447 participants underwent dietary assessment and brain MRI scanning between 2005 and 2015. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 4,447 Evidence: moderate

White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are commonly assumed to represent non-specific cerebrovascular disease comorbid to neurodegenerative processes, rather than playing a synergistic role. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 571 Evidence: moderate

Whether the association of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) with dementia differs by sex remains unclear, and the role of socioeconomic, lifestyle, genetic, and medical factors in their association is unknown. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 502,649 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