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 1,676–1,700 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 68 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.

Potential association between frailty and pTau in community-dwelling older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. BMC geriatrics 2022-09-26

Among the 12 biomarkers, only pTau was higher in frail individuals than in their not-frail peers (471.3 ± 58.1 pg/mL vs. 451.9 ± 61.1 pg/mL, p = 0.022). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 313 Evidence: moderate

Plasma β-synuclein demonstrated discriminative properties for Aβ PET positive and negative subjects. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 51 Evidence: moderate

Cardiovascular Health and Biomarkers of Neurodegenerative Disease in Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA network open 2025-03-03

These findings suggest that promoting CVH in older adults may help alleviate the burden of neurodegenerative diseases, particularly among Black adults, who are known to experience a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,018 Evidence: moderate

The APOE epsilon4 allele acts as a potent risk factor for AD by accelerating onset. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 3,308 Evidence: moderate

Clinical Features of Alzheimer Disease With and Without Lewy Bodies

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. JAMA neurology 2015-07-01

The mean (SD) age at death was statistically significantly younger for participants who had AD with Lewy bodies (77.9 [9.5] years) than for participants who had AD without Lewy bodies (80.2 [11.1] years) (P = .01). 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

ABT-089, an α4β2 neuronal nicotinic receptor partial agonist, was evaluated for efficacy and safety in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease patients receiving stable doses of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 337 Evidence: high

Lipid-lowering agent use was associated with a lower risk of dementia, and specifically of Alzheimer disease, in those younger than 80 years. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 492 Evidence: moderate

Vitamin B(12) and folate in relation to the development of Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Neurology 2001-05-01

A population-based longitudinal study in Sweden, the Kungsholmen Project A random sample of 370 nondemented persons, aged 75 years and older and not treated with B(12) and folate, was followed for 3 years to detect incident AD cases. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Few teeth without dentures and absence of a regular dentist, not poor mastication and poor attitudes toward dental health, were associated with higher risk of dementia onset in the older Japanese cohort even after adjustment for available covariates. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 220 Evidence: moderate

Some well-known risk factors for AD were confirmed in this study and potential new risk factors were identified. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 36 Evidence: moderate

Progressive CMRglc reductions on FDG-PET occur years in advance of clinical DAT symptoms in patients with pathologically verified disease. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

We compared the predictive value of cerebral perfusion as measured by arterial-spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging (ASL-MRI) with MRI-derived hippocampal volume for determining future cognitive and functional decline and subsequent conversion from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Rates of brain atrophy and/or ventricular enlargement were correlated with declining performance on cognitive scales. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Staging tau pathology with tau PET in Alzheimer's disease: a longitudinal study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Translational psychiatry 2021-09-18

A biological research framework to define Alzheimer' disease with dichotomized biomarker measurement was proposed by National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Neuropathologic substrates of ischemic vascular dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology 2000-11-01

Ischemic vascular dementia (IVD) is a relatively uncommon entity, in the course of which multiple ischemic brain lesions result in progressive cognitive and memory impairment. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 20 Evidence: moderate

This study did not find evidence to suggest that the ratio of dementia risk across Black and White individuals changed in the US between 2000 and 2016. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The objective of the study was to examine variability across multiple prospective cohort studies in level and rate of cognitive decline by race/ethnicity and years of education. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,115 Evidence: moderate

Adherence rates for a number of antihypertensive and dementia drugs are lower for minorities compared with whites. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 56,561 Evidence: moderate

The rate of cognitive change in elderly persons with and without diabetes mellitus is similar, although cognitive performance is poorer in persons with diabetes mellitus. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,493 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