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 76–94 of 94 studies in Prevention trials of type cohort or longitudinal study (page 4 of 4) · 31,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 94 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.

In women at higher risk of cognitive decline due to vascular disease or risk factors, adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was not associated with subsequent 5-year cognitive change. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The combinations that were both highly prevalent and had the most detrimental effect on global cognition were: hearing loss and physical inactivity for the dyad (mean difference in change score = -0.07 SD; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), hearing loss, physical inactivity, and hypertension for the triad (mean difference in change score = -0.07; 95 % CI: -0.09 to -0.06; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.28), and hearing loss, physical inactivity, hypertension, and sleep disturbance for the tetrad (mean difference in change score = -0.05; 95 % CI: -0.07 to -0.03; p < 0.001; effect size = -0.20). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 30,097 Evidence: moderate

A total of 6321 participants (mean [SE] age, 56.1 [0.18] years at visit 1; n = 4077 women [57.8%]) were included. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 4,077 Evidence: moderate

A covariate-adjusted linear mixed model for the intention-to-treat sample (N = 353; mean age = 69.7) revealed a significant positive change in dementia literacy at 6 months (standardized change = 0.246; p = 0.012) and a significant improvement in self-efficacy at 12 months (standardized change = 0.157; p = 0.008). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 353 Evidence: moderate

Significant improvement over time was observed in aggregated domain specific composite scores of episodic and semantic memory and spatial abilities. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 155 Evidence: high

The Hierarchical-Circular Model of Biological Memory offers a unifying hypothesis for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias that bridges genetic, epigenetic, physiological, neuroimmune, and interoceptive processes across the lifespan. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Type 2 Diabetes and Cognitive Decline: A Neurovascular Perspective

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Chronicle of Diabetes Research and Practice 2025-01-01

The manuscript provides a thorough analysis of the neurovascular and metabolic processes that contribute to cognitive deterioration in patients with Type 2 diabetes (T2D). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Greater diversity of social participation was associated with better long-term cognitive maintenance among older adults with hypertension and/or diabetes. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 547 Evidence: moderate

Pre-dementia clinical trajectories associated with neuronal α-synuclein neuropathologic change: a retrospective cohort study

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Research Square 2026-08-27

Biological definitions of neuronal α-synuclein disease are advancing diagnosis beyond traditional clinical syndromes, but the trajectories preceding dementia and the influence of concomitant Alzheimer pathology remain uncertain. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,543 Evidence: moderate

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 →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Longitudinal plasma proteomics separates diagnostic differences from progression-linked changes in Alzheimer’s disease

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. medRxiv 2026-07-10

Most plasma proteomic studies in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compare cases and controls cross-sectionally, leaving unresolved which AD-associated proteins mark diagnostic states and which are linked to disease progression. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 13,449 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 31,380 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 31,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (65.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (16.2%), 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.

1,048 records (3.3% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 973 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    Where this research is being discussed: events