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 1,751–1,775 of 3,121 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 71 of 125) · 27,380 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.

Visual and hearing impairments are associated with cognitive decline in older people

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Age and ageing 2018-07-01

This study aims to determine whether single and dual sensory impairment (hearing and/or vision) are independently associated with cognitive decline among older adults and to describe cognitive trajectories according to their impairment pattern. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Previous reports have suggested that estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) in women may exert a protective effect on their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: high

The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was recently proposed as a cognitive screening test for milder forms of cognitive impairment, having surpassed the well-known limitations of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 90 Evidence: moderate

Two hundred ten community-dwelling patients with Alzheimer's disease were examined prospectively by psychiatrists as part of a longitudinal study. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 25 Evidence: moderate

Though these findings cannot prove causality, and we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding, they provide more evidence of the risk of using these drugs in older patients, reinforcing the concept that they should not be used in the absence of clear need. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The cohort experienced 496 suspected infections; 72.4% were treated with antimicrobials, most commonly quinolones (39.8%) and third- or fourth-generation cephalosporins (20.6%). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

For evaluating factors associated with POLST-discordant care, the outcome was ICU admission contrary to POLST order for medical interventions during the last hospitalization of life. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Illness duration and symptom prevalence, duration, and burden were analysed for children testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 for whom illness duration could be determined, and were assessed overall and for younger (age 5-11 years) and older (age 12-17 years) groups. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Blood Biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease and Cognition: A Literature Review

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Biomolecules 2024-01-11

Recent advances in blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) show great promise for clinical applications, offering a less invasive alternative to current cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measures. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

At follow-up, stage 1 subjects showed reduced atrophy rates in medial frontal areas and precuneus compared to stage 0 subjects, whereas stage 2/3 subjects presented accelerated atrophy in medial temporal structures. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Unveiling 30 years of research on speech biomarker of dementia using text mining

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Digital health 2025-07-29

Our analysis yielded three major a marked acceleration in research activity since 2020, a convergence of clinical needs with technological advancements, and the inherently interdisciplinary nature of this field. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The GWAS identified a significant single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), rs17149074, within the C9orf171 (CFAP77) gene region that showed significant association with changes in CSF t-tau over time. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Risk of pneumonia in new users of cholinesterase inhibitors for dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2015-04-27

The mean age of 35,570 new users of cholinesterase inhibitors (30,174 users of donepezil, 1,176 users of galantamine, 4,220 users of rivastigmine) was 82; 75% were women, and 82% were white. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Baseline pRBD was associated with faster decline in global cognition and all cognitive domains, including verbal episodic memory, visuospatial ability, executive function, language, and processing speed. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Linking Metabolic Syndrome to Neurodegeneration Mechanisms and Potential Treatments

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Molecular neurobiology 2025-04-24

The global rise in both metabolic syndrome (MetS) and neurodegenerative diseases (NDs), particularly dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses a growing health and socioeconomic burden. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

To investigate the correlation between hypertension development and the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia in middle-aged and elderly people. 2 key findings →

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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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