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 501–525 of 835 studies in Prevention trials (page 21 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.

Our study shows that the pdp is well received by its participants, underlined by a high level of satisfaction and positive responses to what pdp offers. 5 key findings →

Participants: 575 Evidence: low

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

Dementia, a syndrome characterized by a decline in cognitive function beyond what is expected from normal aging, poses a significant global health challenge. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the science related to non-pharmacological interventions designed to slow decline for older adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment or early-stage dementia. 2 key findings →

Evidence: high

Certain diets, such as the Mediterranean diet, may play a significant role in healthy aging by preventing the onset of certain diseases and by improving the aging process itself. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Cognitive impairment is a common non-motor symptom in Parkinson's Disease (PD) and an important source of patient disability and caregiver burden. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mediterranean Diet on Sleep: A Health Alliance

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Nutrients 2022-07-21

The Mediterranean diet is a plant-based, antioxidant-rich, unsaturated fat dietary pattern that has been consistently associated with lower rates of noncommunicable diseases and total mortality, so that it is considered one of the healthiest dietary patterns. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

This study provides insight into the personal, social and environmental factors that participants report as barriers and facilitators to the adoption of the MIND diet among middle-aged adults living in the UK. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Use it or lose it? Wii brain exercise practice and reading for domain knowledge

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Psychology and aging 2010-12-01

We investigated the training effects and transfer effects associated with 2 approaches to cognitive activities (so-called brain training) that might mitigate age-related cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Participants: 78 Evidence: low

Aging is a multi-faceted process caused by the accumulation of cellular damage over time, associated with a gradual reduction of physiological activities in cells and organs. 3 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

CT may be a viable secondary prevention technique for late-life depression, a group who are at risk of further cognitive decline and progression to dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Cognitive rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics. Supplement 2004-01-01

A rehabilitation program of 6 weeks, including both motor and cognitive training, was applied to 20 patients affected by Parkinson's disease (PD) in the early stages, presenting with mild cognitive deficits, but no dementia. 3 key findings →

Participants: 20 Evidence: low

Several studies have shown that pharmacological and cognitive treatments for Alzheimers's disease improve cognitive function for short periods, but fewer studies have evaluated the efficacy of those treatments for longer (2-year) periods. 3 key findings →

Participants: 14 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