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
28,980 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Find studies
Showing 1,901–1,925 of 1,936 studies · tagged Lifestyle(page 77 of 78)· 28,980 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; 14,457 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.
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-10-28
Four main themes were extracted: (1) Positive experiences, including perceived improvement in cognitive function and mood; (2) Facilitators and barriers to training participation, with facilitators comprising dementia care experience, higher educational attainment, and availability of free time, and barriers including unfamiliarity with computer operation, low awareness of cognitive training, and lengthy training sessions; (3) Training content preferences, reflecting a desire for both relaxed, engaging content and professional guidance; and (4) Practical dilemmas and suggestions, including difficulties in understanding task instructions and complex login procedures, with recommendations for detailed task descriptions and simplified procedures. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2025-12-27
Shorter sleep duration and greater REM sleep variability may index early AD-related brain changes, warranting longitudinal studies to establish their prognostic significance. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-10-16
Sleep disturbances are common early features of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD). 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-09-29
We built a computer model that reproduces the rhythms and, crucially, lets the measured timing between slow waves and spindles control how strongly memories are written into cortex. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-10-26
SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have the greatest effect on cognition in T2DM, and the multi-component exercise as the most effective lifestyle component. 3 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-08-24
These findings implicate significant liver–brain crosstalk through which chronic alcohol exposure may modulate AD-relevant pathology and reinforce the growing recognition of the liver as a critical organ in AD pathogenesis. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-07-29
We investigated brain, inflammation, cardiometabolic, and gut health changes associated with a six-month multidomain lifestyle intervention in Dutch older adults at risk for cognitive decline and dementia. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·Research Square·2026-07-23
When stable individual differences are accounted for, depressive symptoms emerge as a stronger within-person temporal predictor of cognitive decline than physical activity. 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-09-28
In the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA: n=9,473, median age 64, range 50 to ≥90), linear mixed-effects models examined age-specific differences in cognitive change (recall and fluency) associated with sleep duration, difficulty falling asleep, nocturnal awakenings, incorporating sleep-by-age-by-time interactions, with initial adjustment for sociodemographic factors and further adjustment for health and lifestyle factors. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-08-25
Sleep disturbance in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), particularly the reduction of slow wave sleep (SWS), has been proposed as a novel therapeutic target, with disease-modifying potential. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-08-02
Sleeping more than one’s usual average the night before testing was associated with better delayed memory ( β = 0.03, p = 0.02), while no between-person sleep effects emerged. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-07-28
Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are associated with increased risk of neurodegenerative disease, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD); however, the mechanisms by which TBI promotes AD pathogenesis remain poorly understood. 2 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-10-09
Seasonally normalized 25(OH)D identifies a reproducible state of systemic vulnerability while reducing exposure misclassification caused by calendar timing of measurement. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-10-15
We estimated associations per SD slower walking or smaller adaptability using linear, logistic, and Cox regression (10-year follow-up), overall and in women and men. 5 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·bioRxiv·2026-09-28
A key pathophysiological hallmark of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is loss of nuclear localization and abnormal cytoplasmic aggregation of TAR DNA-binding protein 43 (TDP-43). 4 key findings →
⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewedalzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100.·medRxiv·2026-05-13
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region represents the area of greatest projected growth in instances of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRDs) globally, yet, it remains virtually uncharacterized in health studies of aging and ADRDs. 4 key findings →
10 of the 1,927 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 28,980 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 28,980 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC
(62.8% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.6%),
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.
1,038 records (3.6% of the
library) are not peer-reviewed — 966 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.