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 395 studies in Prevention trials (page 1 of 16) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 395 studies tagged decline — clear

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.

In this clinical trial, older adults with MCI receiving aerobic-resistance exercises with sequential computerized cognitive training significantly improved cognition, although some results were inconsistent. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of multidomain intervention (MI) tailored to the Korean context. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 51 Evidence: high

The overall effect size (Hedges' g, random effects model) for CCT versus control was small and statistically significant, g = 0.22 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.29). 4 key findings →

Participants: 4,885 Evidence: high

The intervention did not improve global cognitive performance. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 819 Evidence: high

Only RCTs were included in this study; there were eleven studies ( n = 2609 participants) of the Mediterranean diet, seven studies ( n = 313) of the ketogenic diet and one study ( n = 37) of the MIND diet. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,609 Evidence: high

This systematic review suggests that CCT interventions could improve global cognitive function in patients with MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,059 Evidence: high

Current pharmacologic therapies are for symptomatic AD patients, whereas nonpharmacologic training is administrable before symptom onset. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 125 Evidence: high

Vascular management takes place every 3-6 months or otherwise as specified by study physicians. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,200 Evidence: high

Multidomain lifestyle changes are beneficial for cognitive functioning, but future interventions should be intensive enough, and supporting adherence is essential. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 1,260 Evidence: high

Good levels of participation, adherence, and retention appear to be achievable for participants through age 85 years. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,000 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

Two reviewers independently screened the search results and reference lists of the identified papers and related reviews. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 18 Evidence: high

Backgrounds To investigate the efficacy of a community group-based intervention among community-dwelling older adults with physio-cognitive decline syndrome (PCDS). 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 733 Evidence: high

This project will be part of the World-Wide FINGERS (Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability) Network, of which common identifiable data will be shared and harmonized among the consortia. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 165 Evidence: high

Within 17 months, participant recruitment has been successfully completed (N = 1210; mean age: 67.7 years (SD: 4.6); 64% female). 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,210 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

Few nutritional interventions were found to convincingly improve cognition of individuals with MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 500 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

This pilot study showed that functional tasks exercise using simulated functional tasks as a means of combined cognitive and exercise program is feasible and beneficial in improving the memory and functional status of older adults with mild cognitive impairment as well as reducing the care-related burdens of their caregivers. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 59 Evidence: high

↑ 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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