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 34 studies in Prevention trials published 2013 (page 1 of 2) · 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.

Visual speed of processing training delivered on-site or at-home to middle-aged or older adults using standard home computers resulted in stabilization or improvement in several cognitive function tests. 1 key finding →

Participants: 681 Evidence: high

Cognitive decline in aging is a pressing issue associated with significant healthcare costs and deterioration in quality of life. 4 key findings →

Participants: 15 Evidence: high

There is very limited evidence that exercise improves cognitive function in individuals with MCI, although published research is of moderate quality and inconclusive due to low statistical power. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,695 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

These results suggest that persons with MCI can improve their performance on cognitive and functional measures when provided with early cognitive training and it could persist in a long-term follow-up. 2 key findings →

Participants: 24 Evidence: high

Higher "vegetables-fruits" and "snacks-drinks-milk products" pattern scores were associated with reduced risk of cognitive impairment in Chinese older women in Hong Kong. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 221 Evidence: moderate

Overall estimates of the treatment effect were calculated by using a fixed-effects model, and statistical heterogeneity was measured by using a standard chi-squared statistic. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Cognitive training improves sleep quality and cognitive function among older adults with insomnia

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. PloS one 2013-04-05

Study objectives To investigate the effect of an eight-week, home-based, personalized, computerized cognitive training program on sleep quality and cognitive performance among older adults with insomnia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: low

Human-computer interaction-based comprehensive training may improve cognitive functions among cognitively impaired elderly individuals. 4 key findings →

Participants: 19 Evidence: low

The ultimate goal of cognitive enhancement as an intervention for age-related cognitive decline is transfer to everyday cognitive functioning. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results indicate that cognitive difficulties in memory and speed may occur prior to a HF diagnosis, while those with HF may experience steeper declines in reasoning as measured by word series test. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,790 Evidence: moderate

Age and higher baseline BMI, independent of gender, and other confounding factors, are risk factors for cognitive decline. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects approximately 35 million people worldwide. 2 key findings →

Design: cohort 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

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a multifactorial 'healthy brain ageing cognitive training program' for Parkinson's disease. 3 key findings →

Participants: 50 Evidence: high

Studies supporting the notion that physical activity and exercise can help alleviate the negative impact of age on the body and the mind abound. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Given the importance of identifying dementia prodromes for future treatment efforts, we examined two methods of diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and determined whether empirically-derived MCI subtypes of these diagnostic methods were consistent with one another as well as with conventional MCI subtypes (i.e., amnestic, non-amnestic, single-domain, multi-domain). 2 key findings →

Participants: 134 Evidence: low

Higher levels of accordance with both the DASH and Mediterranean dietary patterns were associated with consistently higher levels of cognitive function in elderly men and women over an 11-y period. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,831 Evidence: low

Mediterranean diet adherence and self-reported psychological functioning in an Australian sample

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Appetite 2013-07-02

Given the reported health benefits of a Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) and delay in cognitive decline, we aimed to determine the level of adherence to a MedDiet using an 11-point scale and examine relationships with cognitive function and psychological well-being. 2 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional 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