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 79 studies in Prevention trials of type randomised controlled trial (page 1 of 4) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 79 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.

Effective, scalable dementia prevention interventions are needed to address modifiable risk factors given global burden of dementia and challenges in developing disease-modifying treatments. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 6,104 Evidence: high

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

Of 300 randomized participants, 277 participants (mean age, 72.9 years; 69.3% female) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (142 in the MLI group and 135 in the control group). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 277 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

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

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

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 819 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

Providing multidomain lifestyle training through a web-platform is feasible and well-accepted, but the training should be challenging enough and adequately progress according to participants' capabilities to increase adherence. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 54 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

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

Screening commenced in July 2022. Currently, 1,965 participants have been randomized into lifestyle intervention (n = 772) and control groups (n = 1,193). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 772 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

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a 6-month cycling aerobic exercise intervention on cardiorespiratory fitness and the dose-response relationship in community-dwelling older adults with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 16 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

Transferring a lifestyle intervention from a trial-setting to real life requires knowledge about the factors that influence effective implementation. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 27 Evidence: high

A 6-week robot-assisted, multi-domain cognitive training program can improve the efficiency of global cognitive function and depression during cognitive tasks in older adults with MCI, which is associated with improvements in memory and executive function. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 90 Evidence: high

The results obtained will provide information on the applicability of these multidomain intervention programs to at-risk elderly people. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 150 Evidence: high

Longitudinal associations of pain and cognitive decline in community-dwelling older adults

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 78 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2022-07-28

Pain is inversely associated with cognitive function in older adults, but the effects of pain on cognitive decline are not fully clear. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 688 Evidence: high

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

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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 (3.7% 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