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 25 studies in Prevention trials published 2023 · 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.

Adults aged 65+ are at highest risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes, and prior to the distribution of vaccines in the U.S., were strongly advised to quarantine at home to reduce risk of infection. 3 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 156 Evidence: high

In this clinical trial, older adults with MCI receiving aerobic-resistance exercises with sequential computerized cognitive training significantly improved cognition, although some results were inconsistent. 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

The intervention did not improve global cognitive performance. 2 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 819 Evidence: high

Only RCTs were included in this study; there were eleven studies ( n = 2609 participants) of the Mediterranean diet, seven studies ( n = 313) of the ketogenic diet and one study ( n = 37) of the MIND diet. 4 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 2,609 Evidence: high

Few nutritional interventions were found to convincingly improve cognition of individuals with MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: systematic review Participants: 500 Evidence: high

Our findings suggest that higher adherence to the MIND diet was associated with better cognitive function and potentially slower cognitive decline in later life. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 4,066 Evidence: high

This review suggests the advantage of combined interventions over exercise with comparable effects when compared with cognitive interventions in the population with mild cognitive impairment and dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 2,910 Evidence: high

Individuals with multi-domain amnestic mild cognitive impairment (md-aMCI) have an elevated risk of dementia and need interventions that may retain or remediate cognitive function. 1 key finding →

Evidence: high

ICT-based cognitive intervention had a positive effect on cognitive function, depression, and quality of life in older adults with MCI or mild dementia. 4 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

This critical review explores the review material on physical activity combined with cognitive stimulation interventions in older adults with cognitive impairment and/or dementia. 1 key finding →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

In the South Korean study to prevent cognitive impairment and protect BRAIN health through lifestyle intervention in at-risk elderly people (SUPERBRAIN), we evaluated the impact of a 24-week facility-based multidomain intervention (FMI) and home-based MI (HMI) on white matter integrity. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 152 Evidence: moderate

Greater adherence to hPDI, MDS, RFS, and MIND was individually associated with larger brain volumes in specific regions. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114,684 Evidence: low

Mediterranean diet adherence is associated with lower increase in pPD probability over time and lower possible/probable pPD and PD/DLB incidence in older Mediterranean people. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 21 Evidence: moderate

The MIND diet is associated with both higher cognition and slower rates of cognitive decline, after controlling for neuropathology, indicating the MIND diet may be important to cognitive resilience. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Behavioral and social research has stressed the importance of multi-domain lifestyle interventions to prevent, delay, or remedy age-related cognitive decline among older adults at high risk for dementia. 2 key findings →

Participants: 59 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

Early detection of age-related cognitive decline has transformative potential to advance the scientific understanding of cognitive impairments and possible treatments by identifying relevant participants for clinical trials. 1 key finding →

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