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 351–375 of 835 studies in Prevention trials (page 15 of 34) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

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.

Compared with the control arm (n = 36), the TEAM-V Program (n = 39) was associated with significantly improved general cognition (MoCA, P = 0.02) at 2 years. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 40 Evidence: high

Among the 92 participants in the ITT population (mean age 71.9 years; mean education 16.5 years; 61/92, 66%, women; 88/92, 96%, White), 82 (89%) completed all study activities. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 92 Evidence: high

Both the Keto and ADF groups demonstrated significant weight loss, but cognitive performance improved most notably in the ADF group, in association with reduced inflammation. 5 key findings →

Participants: 96 Evidence: high

This multimodal intervention program demonstrated no effectiveness in mitigating cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Regression analysis indicated that APOE ε4 non-carriers showed significantly greater improvement in MMN amplitude (β = ‒0.449, p = 0.027). 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 21 Evidence: high

Is Alzheimer's Disease Risk Modifiable?

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD 2019-01-01

Population-based clinic-pathological studies have established that the most common pathological substrate of dementia in community-dwelling elderly people is mixed, especially Alzheimer's disease (AD) and cerebrovascular ischemic disease (CVID), rather than pure AD. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The findings from this study have the potential to significantly enhance efforts to ameliorate cognitive aging and slow dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 360 Evidence: high

We conclude that eight-week MBI for older adults are feasible, but results on cognitive improvement are inconclusive due a limited number of studies, small sample sizes, and a high risk of bias. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: high

Adherence to MIND Diet, Genetic Susceptibility, and Incident Dementia in Three US Cohorts

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Nutrients 2022-07-03

Adherence to Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) may lower the risk of dementia by impacting immunity and cholesterol, which are pathways also implicated by genome-wide association studies of Alzheimer’s Dementia (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 2,449 Evidence: low

Robust approaches to study design and analysis are critical to negotiate issues related to the intervention. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

Our study is a unique resource of neuroimaging and cognitive measures relevant to change across the adult lifespan. 3 key findings →

Participants: 3,000 Evidence: moderate

Cognitive activity and incident AD in a population-based sample of older persons

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Neurology 2002-12-01

Frequency of participation in cognitively stimulating activities appears to be associated with risk of AD and may partially explain the association of educational and occupational attainment with disease risk. 5 key findings →

Participants: 139 Evidence: low

In total, 156 individuals were assessed for eligibility, and 79 (51%) were recruited (mean age 61.6 ± 6.9 (range 60-75) years; 68% male). 5 key findings →

Participants: 156 Evidence: high

=0.03), indicating improved executive function. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 33 Evidence: high

Impact of frailty status on the effect of a multidomain lifestyle intervention on cognition

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Age and Ageing 2025-02-01

Frailty status (prefrail/frail n = 520, robust n = 625) at baseline did not modify the effect of intervention on global cognition during the 2-year follow-up (P-value for frailty × intervention × time interaction > .05). 5 key findings →

Participants: 520 Evidence: high

Olive oil (OO) is the most representative food of the traditional Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet). 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

The Mediterranean dietary pattern as captured by the MedDiet scoring system may reduce the rate of cognitive decline with older age. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

In this large-scale prospective epidemiological study, we examined associations of long-term adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MeDi) and subsequent cognitive function and decline. 2 key findings →

Participants: 16,058 Evidence: moderate

To examine the association between dietary habits, cognitive functioning and brain volumes in older individuals, data from 194 cognitively healthy individuals who participated in the Prospective Investigation of the Vasculature in Uppsala Seniors cohort were used. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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 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