Get help now — free helplines

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 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call 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) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed 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.

Find studies

Showing 1–25 of 118 studies in Prevention trials · tagged Risk Factors (page 1 of 5) · 28,580 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 118 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “Prevention trials” covers

Prevention trials — Trials that test whether a specific diet, lifestyle change or supplement actually slows cognitive decline.

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.

Speed of processing training results in lower risk of dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 88 out of 100. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) 2017-11-07

Initially, healthy older adults randomized to speed of processing cognitive training had a 29% reduction in their risk of dementia after 10 years of follow-up compared to the untreated control group. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,802 Evidence: high

An 18-month multimodal intervention for older adults at risk of dementia could improve their cognitive function. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 203 Evidence: high

A 2-year multi-domain lifestyle intervention among older adults was effective in preventing cerebrovascular events and also total CVD events among those who had history of CVD. 2 key findings →

Participants: 631 Evidence: high

Adults aged 65+ are at highest risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and prior to the distribution of vaccines in the U.S., were strongly advised to quarantine at home to reduce risk of infection. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 156 Evidence: high

Clusters with diffuse or frontal-predominant cortical thinning, but with more favourable vascular profiles, characterized by lower blood pressure and reduced obesity, showed significantly less cortical thinning (mean thickness, AD-signature, and resilience-signature regions; all p < 0.05) following the intervention. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 120 Evidence: high

The intervention was feasible and acceptable with the intended number of participants completing the study. 5 key findings →

Participants: 104 Evidence: high

The Mediterranean-Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet seems a promising approach to preserve brain function during aging. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 40 Evidence: high

The CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia) Risk Score is a validated tool estimating dementia risk. 4 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 112 Evidence: high

Low cognitive and brain reserve and limited cognitive stimulation are associated with increased risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 6,742 Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that higher adherence to the MIND diet was associated with better cognitive function and potentially slower cognitive decline in later life. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,066 Evidence: high

Greater MIND diet adherence was associated with decreased risk of cognitive impairment in female participants but not male participants, with no difference between Black participants and White participants. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 14,145 Evidence: moderate

We investigated the effect of a multidomain lifestyle intervention on the risk of dementia estimated using the validated CAIDE risk score (post-hoc analysis). 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Which components of the Mediterranean diet are associated with dementia? A UK Biobank cohort study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. GeroScience 2022-07-06

Cohort studies suggest that the Mediterranean diet is associated with better global cognition in older adults, slower cognitive decline and lower risk of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 249,511 Evidence: moderate

In a large dementia prevention trial with 6-year follow-up, dropout was associated with older age, poorer cognitive function, symptoms of depression, and disability at baseline. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,994 Evidence: high

Recruitment of 2600 older people (≥65 years) at increased risk of cardiovascular disease will take place in the Netherlands, Finland and France. 2 key findings →

Design: open-label trial Evidence: high

Outcomes from this trial support the conduct of a larger and longer trial with this participant group. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 57 Evidence: high

The heterogeneous and multi-factorial nature of dementia requires the consideration of all health aspects when predicting the risk of its development and planning strategies for its prevention. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Cognitive training involving speed of cognitive processing has the potential to delay the diagnosis of ADRD. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 2,021 Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that older adults at higher dementia risk due to diabetes can show improvements in both cognition and disease self-management following home-based multidomain computerized cognitive training. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Association of Cardiovascular Health Level in Older Age With Cognitive Decline and Incident Dementia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. JAMA 2018-08-01

In this cohort of older adults, increased numbers of optimal cardiovascular health metrics and a higher cardiovascular health score were associated with a lower risk of dementia and lower rates of cognitive decline. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 6,626 Evidence: moderate

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

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 tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up 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.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed