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 376–400 of 701 studies in Mild cognitive impairment (page 16 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.

In the MCI+NPS group, the most frequently endorsed NPS was anxiety (46.2 %), the less prevalent NPS was euphoria/elation (1.44 %). 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 376 Evidence: low

All included PD patients were cognitively normal at baseline and had 6 years of follow-up assessments available for cognitive status. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 47 Evidence: moderate

Among 558 amnestic MCI participants (168 ChEI users), ChEI users exhibited higher risk of progression to AD dementia (hazard ratio = 1.77, 95% confidence interval: 1.15 to 2.73, p = 0.001). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

< 0.001). Shape features demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy for conversion, with areas under the curve of 0.891 at baseline and 0.898 at 2 years. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 180 Evidence: moderate

The PD-MCI nonreversion group had greater p-tau:amyloid beta and t-tau:amyloid beta ratios relative to the PD-MCI reversion group. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 430 Evidence: moderate

Thirteen studies were included (five guidelines, two clinical decisions, two systematic reviews, one meta-analysis, and three RCTs). 3 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Evidence: high

Disruptions in GABAergic activity and alterations in gamma oscillations are key pathological features of AD associated with amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 127 Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is generally referred to the transitional zone between normal cognitive function and early dementia or clinically probable Alzheimer's disease (AD). 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Extant data from in vivo animal models and postmortem studies indicate that Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology is associated with reduction of the brain antioxidant glutathione (GSH), yet direct clinical evidence has been lacking. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a nosological entity proposed as an intermediate state between normal aging and dementia. 4 key findings →

Participants: 45 Evidence: low

Gene ontology over-representation and functional gene network analyses indicate an increase in synaptic activity and changes in plasticity during the very early pre-symptomatic stage of the disease. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Oxidative stress has been implicated in the pathogenesis of a number of diseases including Alzheimer's disease (AD). 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Colocalization of cerebral iron with Amyloid beta in Mild Cognitive Impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Scientific reports 2016-10-17

Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) MRI at 7 Tesla and 11-Carbon Pittsburgh-Compound-B PET were used for investigating the relationship between brain iron and Amyloid beta (Aβ) plaque-load in a context of increased risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), as reflected by the Apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE-e4) allele and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in elderly subjects. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Among 2985 nondemented individuals, 601 were diagnosed with MCI, resulting in a prevalence of 20.1% for total MCI, 13.2% for amnestic MCI (aMCI), and 7.0% for non-amnestic MCI (naMCI). 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Mild cognitive impairment: directions for future research

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Neurology 2003-08-01

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an intermediate state between normal aging and dementia, is characterized by acquired cognitive deficits, without significant decline in functional activities of daily living. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Adiponectin, an adipocytokine released by the adipose tissue and has important roles in the metabolic regulation and inflammatory control, may play an important roles in the physiopathology of psychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders. 4 key findings →

Participants: 157 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