Cited by 270Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchNutritional Studies and DietCognitive Abilities and Testing

Structured vs Self-Guided Multidomain Lifestyle Interventions for Global Cognitive Function: The US POINTER Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Baker, Laura D., Espeland, Mark A., Whitmer, Rachel A., Snyder, Heather M., Leng, Xiaoyan, Lovato, Laura, Papp, Kathryn V., Yu, Melissa +26 more·2025·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Identifying new interventions to slow and prevent cognitive decline associated with dementia is critical. Nonpharmacological interventions targeting modifiable risk factors are promising, relatively low-cost, accessible, and safe approaches. Objective: To compare the effects of two 2-year lifestyle interventions on cognitive trajectory in older adults at risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-blind, multicenter randomized clinical trial enrolling 2111 participants from May 2019 to March 2023 (final follow-up, May 14, 2025) at 5 clinical sites in the US. Participant inclusion criteria enriched risk of cognitive decline and included age 60 to 79 years, sedentary lifestyle, and suboptimal diet plus at least 2 additional criteria related to family history of memory impairment, cardiometabolic risk, race and ethnicity, older age, and sex. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned with equal probability to structured (n = 1056) or self-guided (n = 1055) interventions. Both interventions encouraged increased physical and cognitive activity, healthy diet, social engagement, and cardiovascular health monitoring, but differed in structure, intensity, and accountability. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary comparison was difference between intervention groups in annual rate of change in global cognitive function, assessed by a composite measure of executive function, episodic memory, and processing speed, over 2 years. Results: Among the 2111 individuals enrolled (mean age, 68.2 [SD, 5.2] years; 1455 [68.9%] female), 89% completed the year 2 assessment. The mean global cognitive composite z score increased from baseline over time in both groups, with a mean rate of increase per year of 0.243 SD (95% CI, 0.227-0.258) for the structured intervention and 0.213 SD (95% CI, 0.198-0.229) for the self-guided intervention. The mean rate of increase per year was statistically significantly greater for the structured group than the self-guided group by 0.029 SD (95% CI, 0.008-0.050; P = .008). Based on prespecified secondary subgroup comparisons, the structured intervention benefit was consistent for APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers ( P = .95 for interaction) but appeared greater for adults with lower vs higher baseline cognition ( P = .02 for interaction). Fewer ascertained adverse events were reported in the structured group (serious: 151; nonserious: 1091) vs the self-guided group (serious: 190; nonserious: 1225), with a positive COVID-19 test result being the most common adverse event overall and more frequent in the structured group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults at risk of cognitive decline and dementia, a structured, higher-intensity intervention had a statistically significant greater benefit on global cognition compared with an unstructured, self-guided intervention. Further investigation of functional outcomes, biomarkers, and ongoing extended follow-up will help address clinical relevance and sustainability of the observed cognitive benefits. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688126

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2025.12923

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is much evidence that lifestyle intervention and adoption of healthy lifestyles promotes cognitive health and staves off cognitive decline.

    “There is much evidence that lifestyle intervention and adoption of healthy lifestyles promotes cognitive health and staves off cognitive decline [85–92]”

    From Personalized machine learning guided intervention for optimizing lifestyle behaviors in depression: a pilot study (2026) · cites this paper as [92]

    The Key Points and Discussion report that a structured multidomain lifestyle intervention produced greater improvement in global cognition than a self-guided intervention over two years in older adults at elevated risk. The Discussion also says that, without a no-intervention control, the trial cannot rule out practice effects or establish that the interventions prevented decline. The claim extends the finding to healthy-lifestyle adoption generally and to staving off cognitive decline. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baker, L. D., Espeland, M. A., Whitmer, R. A., Snyder, H. M., Leng, X., Lovato, L., Papp, K. V., Yu, M., Kivipelto, M., Alexander, A. S., Antkowiak, S., Cleveland, M., Day, C., Elbein, R., Tomaszewski Farias, S., Felton, D., Garcia, K. R., Gitelman, D. R., Graef, S., Howard, M., Katula, J., Lambert, K., Matongo, O., McDonald, A. M., Pavlik, V., Raman, R., Salloway, S., Tangney, C., Ventrelle, J., Wilmoth, S., Willliams, B. J., Wing, R., Woolard, N., & Carrillo, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Alzheimer's Association (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • University of Eastern Finland (FI)
  • Kelsey Research Foundation (US)
  • Department of Neurology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento
  • Advocate Health Care (US)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
  • Wake Forest University (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Division of Medical and Scientific Relations, Alzheimer’s Association, Chicago, Illinois
Corresponding author
  • Baker, Laura D.
  • Espeland, Mark A.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2025-08-26
Volume
334
Issue
8
Pages
681
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W4412703754
Cited by
270
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 216 · 2025: 54
FWCI
180.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P30AG072947)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
lifestyle intervention, cognitive decline, dementia prevention, older adults, global cognitive function, executive function, episodic memory, processing speed, APOE ε4, physical activity, cognitive activity, healthy eating, social engagement, cardiovascular monitoring, sedentary lifestyle, cardiometabolic risk, modifiable risk factors, non-pharmacological treatment
MeSH terms
Diet, Healthy, Healthy Aging, Aged, Cognition, Dementia, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Exercise, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Sedentary Behavior, Social Participation, Cognitive Dysfunction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review