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 73 studies in Prevention trials published 2020 (page 1 of 3) · 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.

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

This study indicates that the cognitive and behavioral efficacies of MeMo, a Web-based training app, can be observed only with regular use of the app. 4 key findings →

Participants: 46 Evidence: high

Cognitive training interventions show to be a potential treatment to ameliorate depression in people with cognitive impairment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 2,551 Evidence: high

CCT proved effective in PD-MCI patients when compared with traditional PCT. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 53 Evidence: high

The 2-year multidomain FINGER intervention may modulate white matter microstructural alterations. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 34 Evidence: high

Hippocampal plasticity underpins long-term cognitive gains from resistance exercise in MCI

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. NeuroImage. Clinical 2020-01-14

Furthermore, hippocampal subfields susceptible to atrophy in AD were protected by PRT revealing an elimination of long-term atrophy in the left subiculum, and attenuation of atrophy in left CA1 and dentate gyrus when compared to SHAM+SHAM (p = 0.023, p = 0.020 and p = 0.027). 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Outcomes from this trial support the conduct of a larger and longer trial with this participant group. 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 57 Evidence: high

In this pilot study, RFM and the multi-domain approach CPR were feasible and had preliminary beneficial effects in older adults with MCI in primary care setting in Hong Kong. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that older adults at higher dementia risk due to diabetes can show improvements in both cognition and disease self-management following home-based multidomain computerized cognitive training. 4 key findings →

Evidence: high

Cognition-Oriented Treatments for Older Adults: a Systematic Overview of Systematic Reviews

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 69 out of 100. Neuropsychology review 2020-04-07

Cognition-oriented treatments - commonly categorized as cognitive training, cognitive rehabilitation and cognitive stimulation - are promising approaches for the prevention of cognitive and functional decline in older adults. 1 key finding →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

MBSR is well-accepted potentially promising intervention with positive effect on cognition, depressive symptoms and immunological profile. 5 key findings →

Participants: 12 Evidence: low

Following the rapid increase of the aging population, health promotion and prevention of physical disability and dementia in older persons are essential for healthy aging. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

Cognitive training in MCI may be enhanced by atDCS, but further delineation of the impact of current brain state, as well as temporal characteristics of multi-session atDCS-training application, may be needed to induce longer-lasting effects. 2 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Evidence: low

Vortioxetine may be beneficial for age-related cognitive decline when combined with cognitive training. 4 key findings →

Participants: 100 Evidence: low

Our search identified a total of 2,824 citations, following screening for duplicates and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, five studies were included for analysis. 1 key finding →

Participants: 2,824 Evidence: low

Adults who engage in leisure time aerobic and muscle strengthening activities at levels recommended by the 2018 physical activity guidelines for Americans show greatly reduced risk of all cause and cause specific mortality. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 268 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