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 1,526–1,550 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 62 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.

During a median of 10.8 years follow-up, sleeping more or fewer than 7 hours was associated with a higher dementia risk (hazard ratio [HR] for 5 vs 7 hours: 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.64; HR for 9 vs 7 hours: 1.59; 95% CI 1.37-1.85) as was daytime napping (HR for often/all of the time vs never/rarely: 1.67; 95% CI 1.37-2.03). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Investigators/staff from 85 (of 192 cohorts) responded; 6 (7%) excluded participants with severe impairment; 80 (94%) measured hearing and/or vision impairment, while 5 (6%) measured neither. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

During the follow-up, 428 developed dementia; 221 had AD, 157 had VaD, and 50 had dementia of other subtypes. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the leading cause of dementia worldwide, imposes a growing clinical and societal burden, yet no therapies have been proven to alter its progression despite decades of intensive research. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

White matter hyperintensities (WMH) - - areas of increased signal appearing on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging - - are associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) risk and progression in late onset and genetic forms. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Outcomes for acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) treatment included (1) any new AChEI treatment during follow-up, and (2) persistence of treatment during follow-up categorized into: intermittent treatment (< 50% follow-ups reporting treatment), persistent (≥50% follow-ups), and always treated. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The findings may help clinicians identify athletes who are at risk for worse impairments after a concussion due to preinjury sleep difficulties. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 348 Evidence: moderate

CMS GUIDE Model: Lessons Learned by an Established Track Program at End of Year One

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-31

This paper reports first-year, real-world results from one of the 96 'Established Track' organizations in the CMS GUIDE dementia care model, which launched nationally on July 1, 2024. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 158 Evidence: early

Diet Quality and Dementia Risk in Older Adults With Alzheimer Pathology

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-06-01

Over a mean follow-up of 8.4 years (range, Conclusions and relevance This cohort study of older adults found that adherence to a dietary pattern with lower inflammatory potential was associated with lower dementia risk among individuals with AD pathology and broader neurobiological risk. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,865 Evidence: early

Early metformin initiation was not associated with incident dementia in older adults newly diagnosed with diabetes. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 34,700 Evidence: null result

A distinct set of midlife depressive symptoms was associated with an increased risk of dementia, suggesting that these symptoms might be early markers of underlying neurodegenerative processes. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 5,811 Evidence: moderate

ApoE4 lowers the ptau217 threshold for tau aggregation and spread in an allele dose-dependent manner

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Brain 2026-06-03

We found that ApoE4 did not facilitate amyloid-PET-associated ptau increases, suggesting that amyloid-related ptau secretion is not altered by ApoE4 carriage. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 401 Evidence: moderate

Evaluation of ATNPD Framework and Biofluid Markers to Predict Cognitive Decline in Early Parkinson Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2024-02-02

In patients with early PD, CSF p-tau 181 and t-tau were low compared with those in controls and did not increase over 5 years of follow-up. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate

Challenges in a Biological Definition of Alzheimer Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Neurology 2024-10-01

It has been suggested that the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer disease (AD) is undergoing a profound transformation, marked by a shift toward a biomarker-based approach, as proposed by the Revised Criteria for Diagnosis and Staging of Alzheimer's Disease. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Psychosis in Alzheimer Disease and Elevations in Disease-Relevant Biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA psychiatry 2024-08-01

In the longitudinal analysis of p-tau181 trajectories of the AD+P group, the group of patients who showed incidence of psychosis over the course of follow-up (AD+P incident) demonstrated an associated increase in plasma p-tau181 levels compared with the group of patients who had psychosis at baseline (AD+P baseline) and showed an associated decrease in plasma p-tau181 levels (F4, 117 = 3.24; P = .01). 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 752 Evidence: moderate

Plasma Biomarkers of Alzheimer Disease in Women With and Without HIV

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. JAMA network open 2023-11-01

These findings suggest that increases in certain plasma AD biomarkers are associated with NP in WLWH and WLWOH and may be associated with later onset of AD, and measuring these biomarkers could be a pivotal advancement in monitoring aging brain health and development of AD among women with and without HIV. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 307 Evidence: moderate

While prior work reliably demonstrates that the APOE ɛ4 allele has deleterious group level effects on Alzheimer disease pathology, the homogeneity of its influence across the lifespan and spatially in the brain remains unknown. 1 key finding →

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