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 68 studies in Prevention trials published 2021 (page 1 of 3) · 27,780 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 68 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.

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a pathology with increasing prevalence in the context of a more long-lived society and it is the first cause of dementia in western countries. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 12,458 Evidence: high

Data collection and analysis We initially screened search results using a 'crowdsourcing' method in which members of Cochrane's citizen science platform identify RCTs. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 400 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

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

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

28 studies (total n = 1337 participants, average age 79-90 years) were included in the systematic review, of which 21 could be meta-analyzed. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 1,337 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 CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia) Risk Score is a validated tool estimating dementia risk. 4 key findings →

Design: post-hoc analysis Participants: 112 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

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

27-OH appears to be a marker not only for dementia/AD risk, but also for monitoring the effects of preventive interventions on cholesterol metabolism. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 47 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

Alzheimer's dementia (AD) is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S., with an estimated $305 billion cost of care in 2020. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 604 Evidence: high

Combined multi-domain interventions may contribute to preventing or delaying disease progression. 1 key finding →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 33 Evidence: high

Relative to HC, the participants with cTBI had lower CAC (0.10 ± 0.03 vs 0.12 ± 0.03 mm 2 /mm Hg, P = .046) and higher CVR (0.17 ± 0.03 vs 0.15 ± 0.03 mm Hg/mL/min, P = .028). 4 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

However, the results of recent studies using semi-immersive virtual reality (VR)-assisted cognitive training are inconsistent. 5 key findings →

Participants: 23 Evidence: low

The search yielded 115 distinctly named non-genetic risk and protective factors with a significant association, with various strengths of evidence. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Measuring usability and UX in cognitive intervention technologies for older adults with MCI or dementia provides an integrated view that can contribute to their development according to the needs and characteristics of the target population. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Our findings provide a current overview of published PC-interventions in dementia, which followed heterogeneous approaches under the PCC-concept. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review 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