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 1,351–1,375 of 1,897 studies · tagged Lifestyle(page 55 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.
Caregivers in the control conditions reported significantly worsening sleep efficiency whereas in comparison, those in the active conditions reported improving sleep efficiency. 4 key findings →
Vitamin D and vitamin D receptor (VDR) have been postulated as environmental and genetic factors in neurodegeneration disorders including multiple sclerosis (MS), Alzheimer disease (AD), and recently Parkinson disease (PD). 5 key findings →
Poorer cognitive function and an increased risk of vascular dementia (VaD) were found to be associated with a lower consumption of milk or dairy products. 5 key findings →
This paper is a qualitative study based on retrospective, unstructured, qualitative interviews with Mrs. Jones and other African-American, Chinese-American, Irish-American and Latino family caregivers in the Boston area. 5 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Neurobiology of aging·2012-01-04
Methylation reactions linked to homocysteine in the one-carbon metabolism are increasingly elicited in Alzheimer's disease, although the association of hyperhomocysteinemia and of low B vitamin levels with the disease is still debated. 4 key findings →
Dementia and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) are major causes of disability in the elderly. n-3 Fatty acids, particularly docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are highly concentrated in brain and retinal tissue and may prevent or delay the progression of dementia and AMD. 4 key findings →
The dominant research paradigm for Alzheimer's disease has focused on amyloid-beta plaqueremoval for over three decades, producing no curative therapy despite billions of dollars ofinvestment. 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·JACC CardioOncology·2025-08-29
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer remain the leading causes of mortality in the United States, where poor diet has surpassed smoking as the leading risk factor for death, and life expectancy has hit a plateau as CVD mortality has stagnated over the past decade. 1 key finding →
• This analysis consists of 567 participants revealed that vitamin B12 deficiency, not folate or vitamin B1 deficiency was associated with hippocampal atrophy detected by MRI-VSRAD analysis. • Vitamin B12 deficiency was associated with hyperhomocysteinemia. • Clear correlations were observed between hippocampal atrophy and vitamin B12 value. 4 key findings →
The purpose of this narrative review is to examine women's cognitive health and to highlight its association with four major pillars: (1) aging, (2) estrogen decline and loss, (3) diet, and (4) neuroinflammation, and their contribution to cognitive decline, with a focus on this combination to increase awareness and address the progression and potential amelioration of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Cells·2026-07-17
The Mediterranean diet, rich in plant-based foods, olive oil, and fish, has been consistently associated with slower cognitive decline and reduced risk of neurodegeneration in observational studies and some clinical trials. 4 key findings →
The evidence for cognitive training in preventing cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease is varied, with some studies indicating cognitive benefits but showing limited impact on functional outcomes or disease progression. 1 key finding →
Cognitive training shows potential in preventing cognitive decline in individuals at risk for Alzheimer's disease, especially as part of multimodal interventions, though current evidence varies in quality and clarity. 1 key finding →
Cognitive training appears effective in improving cognitive functions and delaying cognitive decline in people at risk of Alzheimer's disease but requires more standardized research for conclusive evidence. 1 key finding →
✓ Peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100.·Biomolecules·2019-12-17
The Maillard reaction is a simple but ubiquitous reaction that occurs both in vivo and ex vivo during the cooking or processing of foods under high-temperature conditions, such as baking, frying, or grilling. 3 key findings →
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the major cause of dementia, characterized by the presence of amyloid-beta plaques and neurofibrillary tau tangles. 2 key findings →
Nutrition is known to modulate the immune system and may alter neuroinflammatory processes implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and progression of neurodegeneration. 1 key finding →
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.