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.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 76 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

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. Currently there are no cures or therapies to ameliorate the disease progression and symptoms. Growing evidence links a diet characterized by high antioxidant components with benefits to cognitive function, which is indicative of the preventative potential of dietary inteventions. The Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) study is a 3-year, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to test the effects of the MIND diet on cognitive function in 604 individuals at risk for AD. Men and women ages 65 to 84 years were recruited. Eligible participants were randomized to either the MIND diet with mild caloric restriction or their usual diet with mild caloric restriction. Cognitive assessments, medical history, blood pressure, anthropometric measurements, and blood and urine sample collections will be taken at baseline and follow-up visits. MRI scans will be completed on approximately half of the enrolled participants at the start and end of the study. Unique features of the MIND study include: 1) a dietary pattern, rather than single nutrient or food, tested in an at-risk population; 2) foods featured as key components of the MIND diet (i.e. extra-virgin olive oil, blueberries, and nuts) provided for participants; and 3) MRI scans of brain structure and volume that may provide potential mechanistic evidence on the effects of the diet. Results from the study will be crucial to the development of dietary guidelines for the prevention of AD.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 76/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 44 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 76 of 100. Total 76 of 100.44 of the 58 points we could judge = 76 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Contemporary clinical trials)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 604 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33434704)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 44 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100.
Total 76 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Liu, X., Morris, M. C., Dhana, K., Ventrelle, J., Johnson, K., Bishop, L., et al. (2021). Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) study: Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a randomized control trial of the MIND diet on cognitive decline. Contemporary clinical trials. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2021.106270

Vancouver

Liu X, Morris MC, Dhana K, Ventrelle J, Johnson K, Bishop L, et al. Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) study: Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a randomized control trial of the MIND diet on cognitive decline. Contemporary clinical trials. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2021.106270. PMID: 33434704.

BibTeX

@article{liu2021-33434704,
  author  = {Liu, X. and Morris, M. C. and Dhana, K. and Ventrelle, J. and Johnson, K. and Bishop, L. and Hollings, C. S. and Boulin, A. and others},
  title   = {{Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) study: Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a randomized control trial of the MIND diet on cognitive decline}},
  journal = {Contemporary clinical trials},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.cct.2021.106270},
  pmid    = {33434704},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2021.106270}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →