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 226–250 of 701 studies in Mild cognitive impairment (page 10 of 29) · 27,380 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Browse by subject, author or institution

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

What “Mild cognitive impairment” covers

Mild cognitive impairment — The stage between normal ageing and dementia: who progresses, who doesn't, and what predicts it.

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.

The Electrophysiology Professional Interest Area (EPIA) and Global Brain Consortium endorsed recommendations on candidate electroencephalography (EEG) measures for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

These plasma ceramides may be early indicators of AD progression. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 25 Evidence: low

The choroid plexus (ChP) is a major source of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) production, with a direct and indirect role in protein clearance, and pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 509 Evidence: low

The trend changes in the hippocampus subfields and further illustrates that SCD is the preclinical stage of AD earlier than aMCI. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Pathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are deposits of amyloid beta (Aβ) and hyper-phosphorylated tau aggregates in brain plaques. 4 key findings →

Participants: 13 Evidence: low

These results support the feasibility of bridging of clinical trials in the prodromal stage of AD between Asia and western countries. 3 key findings →

Participants: 75 Evidence: low

Significant progress has been made uncovering functional brain networks, yet little is known about the corresponding structural covariance networks. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 414 Evidence: moderate

The 3D GRASE pCASL offers better repeatability than 2D EPI pCASL, thereby may provide a reliable imaging marker for the evaluation of disease progression and treatment effects in MCI and early AD subjects. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

The current review summarizes the current knowledge on longitudinal cortical and subcortical grey and white matter MRI findings assessed using T1-weighted and one-tensor diffusion-weighted MRI in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), commonly concomitant with Alzheimer's disease (AD), substantially impair the quality of life and accelerate disease progression, yet reliable biomarkers for early identification of individuals at high NPS risk remain elusive. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 509 Evidence: moderate

When an individual with MCI-LB endorsed more clinical features, they typically experienced a faster cognitive decline (ACE-R Score Difference β = -1.1 [-1.7 to -0.5]), specifically when experiencing visual hallucinations (β = -2.1 [-3.5 to -0.8]) or cognitive fluctuations (β = -3.4 [-4.8 to -2.1]).Individuals with MCI-LB typically acquired more clinical features with the passage of time (25.5% [20.0-32.0%] one-year probability), limiting the prognostic utility of baseline-only features. 3 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 74 Evidence: moderate

The primary outcome of this study will be the total score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA). 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 65 Evidence: high

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is defined as the stage between normal cognitive changes that may occur with age and more serious symptoms that indicate dementia. 2 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 1,075 Evidence: high

Subjective Cognitive Decline in Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 53 out of 100. Annual review of clinical psychology 2017-05-01

Older adults with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in the absence of objective neuropsychological dysfunction are increasingly viewed as at risk for non-normative cognitive decline and eventual progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The aim of this study was to establish the rate of progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). 3 key findings →

Participants: 34 Evidence: low

High-dimensional pattern classification was applied to baseline and multiple follow-up MRI scans of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), in order to investigate the potential of predicting short-term conversion to Alzheimer's Disease (AD) on an individual basis. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Loss of function of TREM2, a key receptor selectively expressed by microglia in the brain, contributes to the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Baseline data of 423 PD patients and 196 HCs yielded no between-group differences in demographic characteristics. 3 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 27,380 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 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), 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.

1,032 records (3.8% 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