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 29 studies in How common it is (page 1 of 2) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of these 29 studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Showing 29 studies tagged mild-cognitive — clear

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

What “How common it is” covers

How common it is — Counting patterns across whole populations: who gets dementia, at what age, and how that is changing.

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.

Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted after adjusting for age, sex, and educational status. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 1,969 Evidence: moderate

The development of MCI is associated with measurements of cognition and depression, racial and constitutional factors, and cerebrovascular disease. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 927 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease: a multicenter pooled analysis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 65 out of 100. Neurology 2010-09-01

MCI is common in patients with PD without dementia, affecting a range of cognitive domains, including memory, visual-spatial, and attention/executive abilities. 2 key findings →

Participants: 1,346 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment, amnestic type: an epidemiologic study

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Neurology 2004-07-01

In this community-based sample, 3 to 4% of nondemented persons met MCI operational criteria; despite increased risk of progressing to dementia, a substantial proportion also remained stable or reverted to normal during follow-up. 3 key findings →

Participants: 1,248 Evidence: moderate

Among our participants, aMCI and VCIND demonstrated prevalence of 14.83% and 2.71%, respectively, and annual incidence (per 1000 person-years) of 69.6 and 10.6, respectively. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 2,051 Evidence: moderate

Using the OSHPE criteria, we found more participants with MCI than with frailty. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 5,104 Evidence: low

The meaning of cognitive impairment in the elderly

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1985-04-01

In order to determine the meaning of cognitive impairment in community dwelling elderly, 3,481 adults were interviewed in their homes using the Mini-Mental State Examination. 5 key findings →

Participants: 3,481 Evidence: low

Prevalence and risk factors of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in northern Peru

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Frontiers in Public Health 2025-05-21

According to the results, 31.4% of the sample consisted of subjects without cognitive impairment, 40.5% were identified as possible cases of MCI, and 24.9% as possible cases of dementia. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 385 Evidence: low

Acute Kidney Injury, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia: A Cohort Study of Patients from SPRINT

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Kidney Medicine 2025-01-01

Adjudicated AKI, which was largely mild and reversible, was independently associated with increased risk of probable dementia and the composite of probable dementia and MCI in older adults at high cardiovascular risk. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 270 Evidence: moderate

Clinical and epidemiologic research has focused on the identification of risk factors that may be modified in predementia syndromes, at a preclinical and early clinical stage of dementing disorders, with specific attention to the role of depression. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

HIV-associated cognitive impairment before and after the advent of combination therapy

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Journal of neurovirology 2002-04-01

The objective of this study was to describe the occurrence of HIV dementia and neuropsychological testing abnormalities in a new cohort of HIV-seropositive individuals at high risk for HIV dementia and to compare these results to a cohort before the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

↑ 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 28,180 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 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), 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