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 2,126–2,150 of 3,166 studies of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 86 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.

The original mortality risk score predicted 6-month mortality with reasonable accuracy in 2 validation cohorts of nursing home residents with advanced dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) is one of the major types of cerebral small vessel disease, and a leading cause of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage and cognitive decline in elderly patients. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

In Fine-Gray models, dementia risk was higher in female than in male participants (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 1·89, 95% CI 1·30-2·76) and Black than Asian participants (sHR 1·75, 1·07-2·88), lower in APOE ε2 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 0·39, 0·17-0·88), and not significantly higher in APOE ε4 carriers than in non-carriers (sHR 1·51, 0·92-2·47). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 805 Evidence: moderate

Despite differences in prevalence of APOE-ε4, its association with dementia risk was similar across Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and non-Latino White participants. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 46,325 Evidence: moderate

Neuropathologic Profiles and Associated Cognitive Trajectories in Community-Living Older Adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2026-01-02

Latent neuropathologic profiles were identified using hierarchical clustering, and longitudinal cognitive trajectories associated with each profile were estimated using functional mixed-effects models. 4 key findings →

Design: cohort Participants: 1,633 Evidence: high

In addition, hippocampal sclerosis was a common neuropathological comorbidity ( n = 5) and associated with limbic-predominant TDP-43 proteinopathy ( n = 4) or FTLD-TDP ( n = 1). 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

This study suggests that information obtained from evaluating a subgroup of AD or MCI subject using second-generation TSPO tracers can be translated to the entire AD and MCI population. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 798 Evidence: moderate

Subjects included 96 males and 118 females with a mean age at death of 86 years (SD, 7). 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 96 Evidence: moderate

MCI diagnosis frequencies are substantively affected by the stringency of the criteria, but the relative rankings of MCI subtype diagnoses are fairly consistent regardless of the stringency of the criteria. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 373 Evidence: moderate

Prevalence, laterality, and comorbidity of hippocampal sclerosis in an autopsy sample

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Brain and behavior 2012-06-26

Hippocampal sclerosis (HS) is a common and often asymmetric neuropathological finding among elderly persons who experience progressive memory loss, but its cause is unknown and it is rarely diagnosed during life. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Cerebrovascular compromise of the cholinergic pathways may be a factor that contributes more selectively than does total white matter lesion burden to response to cholinergic therapy in Alzheimer disease, particularly on frontal/executive tasks. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Age-related white matter changes (ARWMC) on brain MRI have been associated with cognitive, motor, mood and urinary disturbances. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

There is emerging evidence that obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a risk factor for preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Diabetes and cognitive systems in older black and white persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders 2010-01-01

We examined the association of type 2 diabetes mellitus to function in different cognitive systems in older black and white persons. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,437 Evidence: moderate

Apathy is a persistent behavioural feature in PD with a high incidence and prevalence over time. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 139 Evidence: moderate

Digital biomarker prognostic models can be a useful tool to assist large-scale population screening for the early detection of cognitive impairment and patient monitoring over time. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Adjusted for demographic and health behavior as well as health condition risk factors, desktop and cellphone ownership were independently associated with subsequent decreased cognitive decline over the four-year period. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that automated deep learning-driven processing of audio recordings of neuropsychological testing performed on individuals recruited within a community cohort setting can facilitate dementia screening. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

We examined longitudinal change in language expression during a semi-structured speech sample in 48 patients with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) or behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) and related this to longitudinal neuroimaging of cortical thickness available in 25 of these patients. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 48 Evidence: moderate

Exposure to ACH medications is independently and specifically associated with a subsequent increase in delirium symptom severity in elderly medical inpatients with diagnosed delirium. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 278 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