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 Helpline800-272-390024 hours a day, 365 days a yearFree, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline98824/7Call 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) Helpline866-232-84849:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a weekLicensed 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.
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 676–700 of 1,897 studies · tagged Lifestyle(page 28 of 76)· 28,580 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)
From OpenAlex; 14,058 studies have no institution on record and are not counted here.
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.
Outcomes of interest were duration of delirium, health-related quality of life, delirium severity, cognitive function, mortality in the ICU, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay and adverse events. 5 key findings →
The beneficial effects of a ketogenic diet (KD) on neurodegenerative conditions such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease (AD) are increasingly acknowledged, with potential implications for the general population as well. 2 key findings →
Sixty-six studies met inclusion criteria for the relationship between physical activity and functional independence, and 34 were included with a cognitive function outcome. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·BMC medicine·2017-01-18
Quantitative imaging of cerebral blood flow and metabolism by positron emission tomography can differentiate between vascular dementia and degenerative dementia and show the interaction between vascular and metabolic changes. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·The Lancet. Neurology·2019-01-17
Nearly half of all adults older than 60 years of age report sleep disturbance, as characterised either by reports of insomnia complaints with daytime consequences, dissatisfaction with sleep quality or quantity, or the diagnosis of insomnia disorder. 5 key findings →
On the eve of the 2012 summer Olympic Games, the first Lancet Series on physical activity established that physical inactivity was a global pandemic, and global public health action was urgently needed. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Sleep medicine·2013-03-07
In this large series of PSG-confirmed and probable RBD cases that underwent autopsy, the strong association of RBD with the synucleinopathies was further substantiated and a wider spectrum of disorders which can underlie RBD now are more apparent. 2 key findings →
Evidence is insufficient to support the use of pharmaceutical agents or dietary supplements to prevent cognitive decline or Alzheimer’s disease. 5 key findings →
This study tested the hypotheses that late-midlife obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and short and long sleep duration are associated with dementia over 15 years of follow-up. 4 key findings →
Whether or not there is targeted pharmacotherapy for dementia, an active and healthy lifestyle that includes physical activity (PA) may be a better option than medication for preventing dementia. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Obesity Facts·2025-11-18
The introduction of incretin mimetics (IMs), including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) such as liraglutide and semaglutide, as well as dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor co-agonists (GLP-1/GIP RAs) like tirzepatide, has revolutionized obesity treatment. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·JAMA Network Open·2025-01-10
A total of 110 participants (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [4.6] years; 68 female [61.8%]) were randomized to the experimental group (n = 55) and the sham group (n = 55) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Sage Open Aging·2025-08-01
This study examined the combined effects of StrongerMemory program (brain exercises involving reading, writing, and math) and weekly social engagement on cognitive, behavioral, and emotional outcomes in older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100.·Nutrients·2016-09-20
Evidence from a limited number of randomised controlled intervention trials (RCTs) have shown that a Mediterranean dietary pattern may reduce the risk of cognitive decline and enhance cognitive function among healthy older adults. 3 key findings →
10 of the 1,888 studies in this tag that have a study page, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 10. The same 10 appear here every time.
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 tierup to 10 pts
Journal's citation recordup to 4 pts
Study designup to 12 pts
Strength of evidenceup to 5 pts
Peer-review validationup to 10 pts
How recentup to 5 pts
Sample sizeup to 4 pts
Effect reportedup to 3 pts
Studied in peopleup to 3 pts
Randomised / blindedup to 2 pts
Times citedup to 7 pts
Citations per yearup to 5 pts
Impact for its field and yearup to 6 pts
Cited by studies hereup to 6 pts
Still being citedup to 4 pts
Senior author's track recordup to 4 pts
Institution's track recordup to 3 pts
Multi-centre collaborationup to 3 pts
Indexed in PubMedup to 2 pts
Free to readup 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 28,580 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 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%),
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 (3.6% 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.