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 1,076–1,100 of 1,897 studies · tagged Lifestyle(page 44 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.
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·1982-01-01
Sleep, EEG and mental function variables were studied in 44 subjects diagnosed as having probable senile dementia of the Alzheimer's type (SDAT) and 22 controls matched for age and minimal depression. 3 key findings →
Sleep and waking EEGs from 11 healthy nondemented elderly men and from ten inpatients for whom the diagnosis was probable senile dementia of Alzheimer's type (SDAT), were monitored in the subjects' typical home or ward environments or in the sleep laboratory, according to their customary sleep schedules. 4 key findings →
The underlying cause of sporadic Alzheimer disease (AD) is unknown, but a number of environmental and genetic factors are likely to be involved. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·PloS one·2013-08-08
The claimed beneficial effects of the Mediterranean diet include prevention of several age-related dysfunctions including neurodegenerative diseases and Alzheimer-like pathology. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Scientific reports·2016-02-18
Studies have assessed individual components of a western diet, but no study has assessed the long-term, cumulative effects of a western diet on aging and Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nature metabolism·2021-02-18
Proregenerative responses are required for the restoration of nervous-system functionality in demyelinating diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS). 4 key findings →
As the population ages, the number of people with dementia is expected to increase in the coming decades, with consequences at the societal and individual levels. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Nutrients·2025-02-06
Nutrition and exercise play a pivotal role in counteracting the effects of aging, promoting health, and improving physical fitness in older adults. 5 key findings →
Exercise-induced oxidative stress results from the overproduction of reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS/RNS) during intense physical activity, potentially impairing muscle function and recovery. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Climacteric·2025-09-03
Lifestyle medicine interventions were associated with reductions in vasomotor symptoms, improved sleep quality, enhanced mental well-being, healthier weight regulation, and reduced cardiometabolic and osteoporosis risk. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·iMetaOmics.·2025-02-10
The Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet has been related to a lower risk of dementia and better cognitive function. 4 key findings →
Our analysis revealed that 26.40% of the participants had mild cognitive impairment, whereas 48.50% demonstrated low adherence to the MIND diet. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·Trials·2025-02-21
COG-T CHD is the first clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of computer-based cognitive training in patients with coronary heart disease, filling an important gap in the treatment evidence for cognitive digital therapy. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100.·EXCLI journal·2026-01-25
Cognitive decline and dementia represent major and growing global health challenges, driven largely by population aging and increased longevity. 3 key findings →
The glymphatic system, a vital brain perivascular network for waste clearance, hinges on the functionality of the aquaporin 4 (AQP4) water channel. 5 key findings →
The possible mediating role of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the relationship between alcohol use disorders (AUD) and the risk of early-onset (<age 65) and late-onset (≥age 65) dementia lacks formal investigation. 5 key findings →
In practice, knowledge and expertise are critical for effective functioning, and the available evidence suggests that older adults effectively employ specific knowledge and expertise and can gain new knowledge when it is required. 5 key findings →
Higher levels of accordance with both the DASH and Mediterranean dietary patterns were associated with consistently higher levels of cognitive function in elderly men and women over an 11-y period. 5 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.
Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work?Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society · 2016-10-01 · usefulness score 36/100
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.