Home › Research › Prevention and risk
Remote, lower-intensity, multidomain lifestyle intervention for subjective cognitive decline or mild cognitive impairment (APPLE-Tree): a multicentre, single-masked, randomised controlled trial
Demnitz-King H, Adeleke M, Barber JA, Poppe M, Budgett J, Alberts S, Duffy L, Minihane AM, Gillings R, Chapman H, et al.. The Lancet Healthy Longevity, 2025-10-20
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Interpretation APPLE-Tree is an accessible intervention associated with small improvements in cognition, although these results were not statistically significant.
Key findings
- Interpretation APPLE-Tree is an accessible intervention associated with small improvements in cognition, although these results were not statistically significant.
Why it matters
The APPLE-Tree remote, lower-intensity multidomain lifestyle intervention was linked to small improvements in cognition, but these results were not statistically significant. This means the trial did not show a clear cognitive benefit from the program.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designRCT
- Participants746
- Effect sizeAdjusted mean difference in NTB score at 24 months 0.06 (95% CI -0.001 to 0.128, p=0.055)
- Evidence strengthNull-result
Limitations
Primary outcome narrowly missed significance; delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic; participants who join a video-call trial may be more engaged than average; cognitive test score rather than dementia incidence.
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. We have no data on free to read, so that was left out: it earned 66 of the 98 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Lancet Healthy Longevity) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | The Lancet Healthy Longevity: journal h-index 78 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “null-result” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 746 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | 2 / 7 | Cited 10 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 3.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 6.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 2 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 10 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Claudia Cooper: h-index 66 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 15 institution(s) in 4 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41130254) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 66 / 98 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 66 of the 98 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — Unpaywall lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).
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
Demnitz-King, H., Adeleke, M., Barber, J. A., Poppe, M., Budgett, J., Alberts, S., et al. (2025). Remote, lower-intensity, multidomain lifestyle intervention for subjective cognitive decline or mild cognitive impairment (APPLE-Tree): a multicentre, single-masked, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Healthy Longevity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100777
Vancouver
Demnitz-King H, Adeleke M, Barber JA, Poppe M, Budgett J, Alberts S, et al. Remote, lower-intensity, multidomain lifestyle intervention for subjective cognitive decline or mild cognitive impairment (APPLE-Tree): a multicentre, single-masked, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Healthy Longevity. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100777. PMID: 41130254.
BibTeX
@article{demnitzking2025-41130254,
author = {Demnitz-King, H. and Adeleke, M. and Barber, J. A. and Poppe, M. and Budgett, J. and Alberts, S. and Duffy, L. and Minihane, A. M. and Gillings, R. and Chapman, H. and others},
title = {{Remote, lower-intensity, multidomain lifestyle intervention for subjective cognitive decline or mild cognitive impairment (APPLE-Tree): a multicentre, single-masked, randomised controlled trial}},
journal = {The Lancet Healthy Longevity},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100777},
pmid = {41130254},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100777}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.