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
30,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,251–1,275 of 2,030 studies · tagged Lifestyle(page 51 of 82)· 30,580 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; 16,054 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.
Numerous epidemiological studies have strongly suggested that multinutrient approaches using the Mediterranean diet (Med diet), dietary approach to systolic hypertension (DASH) and the Mediterranean-DASH diet intervention for neurodegenerative delay (MIND) are associated with a lower risk of cognitive impairment, MCI and Alzheimer's disease in older persons. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·BMC psychiatry·2016-09-08
The associations of an active lifestyle with cognitive change over time in a dementia risk group were stronger than the effects of short-term, specific training interventions. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Metabolites·2024-06-11
Several hallmarks of metabolic syndrome, such as dysregulation in the glucose and lipid metabolism, endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, low-to-medium systemic inflammation, and intestinal microbiota dysbiosis, represent a pathological bridge between metabolic syndrome and diabesity, cardiovascular, and neurodegenerative disorders. 2 key findings →
Our findings show an association between low circulating levels of one of the most important components of the human antioxidant system and the presence of frailty. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Neuro-oncology·2017-03-01
Exercise training is an effective means for promoting white matter and hippocampal recovery and improving reaction time in children treated with cranial radiation for brain tumors. 3 key findings →
Patients in the experimental group showed a significant improvement in various neuropsychological domains, and their achievements were stable after 6 months. 4 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Nature·2021-12-08
Physical exercise is generally beneficial to all aspects of human and animal health, slowing cognitive ageing and neurodegeneration 1 . 2 key findings →
Sleep dysfunction has been identified in the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD); however, the role and mechanism of circadian rhythm dysfunction is less well understood. 1 key finding →
The important functions of sleep include cleaning processes such as the elimination of metabolic products, e.g., amyloid, via the glymphatic system; consolidation of memory; and anabolic regulation of metabolism. 5 key findings →
Sleep apnoea was associated with more common other respiratory concerns, and more frequent visits to physicians, but not with some expected medical comorbidities (cardiac). 3 key findings →
Sensory impairments (e.g., decreased function in hearing, vision, olfaction, and other senses) may be risk factors for or early markers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD). 1 key finding →
These findings suggest that a capsaicin-rich diet may exert favorable effects on AD blood biomarkers and cognitive function in middle-aged and elderly adults. 3 key findings →
Future studies should develop integrative models that consider nutrition, metabolism, and inflammation to address and fully exploit biomarker utility as well as support precision medicine approaches. 3 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·Archives of neurology·2012-05-01
These results suggest that cognitively normal sedentary APOE ε4-positive individuals may be at augmented risk for cerebral amyloid deposition. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100.·JMIR aging·2024-09-16
Our findings highlight that deep learning and DA techniques can aid in the development of adherence support systems for computerized cognitive training, as well as for other interventions aimed at improving health, cognition, and well-being. 5 key findings →
9 of the 2,021 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 9. The same 9 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 30,580 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 30,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(64.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.6%),
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.
1,037 records (3.4% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 964 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.