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 1–23 of 23 studies in Prevention trials · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Showing 23 studies tagged randomized — 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.

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

Primary outcome was feasibility of the multimodal intervention, evaluated by recruitment rate during a 6-month recruitment phase, overall adherence in each intervention arm, and 6-month retention rate. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 93 Evidence: high

The SYNERGIC Trial will establish the efficacy and feasibility of a multimodal intervention to improve cognitive performance and mobility outcomes in MCI. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

One-year repeated cycles of cognitive training (CT) for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. Aging clinical and experimental research 2013-06-20

Present results suggest that repeated cycles of CT in patients with AD treated with ChEIs are associated with benefits in several areas of cognitive function. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 Evidence: high

This trial that enlist the support of private enterprises will lead to the creation of new services for dementia prevention as well as to verify the effectiveness of multi-domain interventions for dementia prevention. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

In AD a clinical recommendation can be made for NEURO-AD TM system and for high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) as probably effective protocols (B-level of evidence) and for anodal tDCS over the left DLPFC as a possibly effective. 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Extra-virgin olive oil for potential prevention of Alzheimer disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Revue neurologique 2019-09-11

Observational epidemiological studies provide valuable information regarding naturally occurring protective factors observed in populations with very low prevalences of vascular disease. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Most individuals with schizophrenia suffer some cognitive dysfunction: such deficits are predictive of longer-term functioning; and current dopamine-blocking antipsychotics have made little impact on this domain. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

LIGHT will provide insight into the implementation and (cost-)effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention for indicated prevention in a memory clinic setting. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

This disease is associated with numerous restrictions for those affected but also for caregivers and society. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 200 Evidence: high

We report the case of a 73-year-old male patient with Alzheimer's disease who underwent 10-daily transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) sessions. tDCS was applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as an adjuvant to the traditional treatment that the patient was receiving, which consisted of anticholinergic medication and cognitive training. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia among the elderly. 2 key findings →

Participants: 30 Evidence: low

Amyloid diseases are characterized by the deposition of typically aggregated proteins/peptides in tissues, associated with degeneration and progressive functional impairment. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The use of positive modulators of PLA2 (especially of cPLA2 and iPLA2) or supplementation with dietary lipid compounds (e.g., arachidonic acid) in combination with cognitive training could be a valuable therapeutic strategy for cognitive enhancement in early-stage AD. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

A 52-year-old male with early-stage Alzheimer's disease and long-standing anxiety received 30 repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation sessions over 8 months and 20-month Mediterranean diet intervention. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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