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

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.

Depression, Anxiety, and Apathy in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Current Perspectives

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 2020-01-30

MCI patients have a high prevalence of depression/anxiety/apathy; furthermore, patients with MCI and concomitant depression/anxiety/apathy have more pronounced cognitive deficits and progress more often to dementia than MCI patients without depression/anxiety/apathy. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is considered to be a transitional stage between normal aging and dementia. 5 key findings →

Participants: 14 Evidence: low

The aim of the study is to evaluate whether depression or apathy in patients with amnestic-mild cognitive impairment (MCI) increases the risk of progressing to Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

These data provide evidence for clinical and functional heterogeneity among subjects with aMCI and suggest that 18FDG-PET findings combined with memory scores may be useful in predicting short-term conversion to AD. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The results indicate that a-MCI and na-MCI display a stable pattern of deficits to attention, working memory, and executive function. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

We believe this to be the first demonstration of myelin loss in MCI, Alzheimer's disease, and vascular dementia using a method that provides a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging-based measure of myelin. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent findings suggest that Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a disconnection syndrome characterized by abnormalities in large-scale networks. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Identifying pre-clinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a major issue in clinical diagnosis. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our novel neuropsychological approach improved the staging of MCI by (1) capturing individuals at an early symptomatic stage, (2) minimizing false-positive cases, and (3) identifying a late MCI group further along the disease trajectory. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our purpose was to characterize a state of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in Parkinson's disease (PD) (PD-MCI) that would be analogous to the MCI that is posited as a precursor of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The efficacy of the MMSE for screening was measured in a subsample of age- and sex-matched patients with dementia (N = 185) and control subjects (N = 227). 4 key findings →

Participants: 185 Evidence: low

While the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was originally developed to screen for dementia and delirium, many neurologists use this measure as a screening instrument for 'cognitive impairment' in hospitalized stroke patients. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Memory clinic patients were administered the MoCA, MMSE, and a comprehensive formal neuropsychological battery. 4 key findings →

Participants: 36 Evidence: low

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) therapy have an increased risk of developing cognitive impairment and dementia, which are known relevant factors in disease prognosis and therapeutic success, but still lack adequate screening in clinical routine. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

All versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) lack population-based data of 80-plus individuals. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Given that aging is associated with higher risk of cognitive decline and dementia, improving early detection of cognitive impairment has become a research and clinical priority. 4 key findings →

Participants: 200 Evidence: low

The AB Cognitive Screen (ABCS) 135, sensitive in differentiating MCI from dementia, was modified to improve sensitivity and specificity, producing the quick mild cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen. 4 key findings →

Participants: 630 Evidence: low

This study utilized an initial dataset of 188,700 participant records from NACC. 5 key findings →

Participants: 16,309 Evidence: low

Of 394 participants, 35 % had preoperative CI on the MoCA, 15 % on the AD8, and 12 % on the Mini-Cog. 5 key findings →

Participants: 394 Evidence: low

CDR-SB and MoCA scores showed strong inverse correlation (Spearman's ρ = -0.68; p < 0.001). 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 23,717 Evidence: moderate

From across this tag

9 of the 846 studies in this tag, picked by a fixed rule (a hash of each study's address), not by score or date; each page of this list shows a different 9. The same 9 appear here every time.

↑ 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 27,780 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 27,780 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.1% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.3%), 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