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 576–600 of 701 studies in Mild cognitive impairment (page 24 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.

Alzheimer disease is a common age-related neurodegenerative disease characterized pathologically by senile plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, synaptic disruption, and progressive neuronal deficits. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Forty-four physicians, primarily neurologists (n = 31; 70.5 %), were interviewed. 5 key findings →

Participants: 31 Evidence: low

Making early and informative diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is highly important for planning timely and appropriate interventions aimed at dementia risk reduction. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

All volumes showed the smallest in dementia, the intermediate in MCI, and the largest in healthy controls. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,536 Evidence: low

Numerous studies have shown a marked decrease of beta-amyloid(42) (Abeta(42)) in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with incipient Alzheimer's disease (AD). 2 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

A multitiered strategy was adopted to assess tau conformational changes within fibrillar lesions during the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

Data support the evidence that neuropsychological rehabilitation is effective in Alzheimer disease (AD), to strengthen the pharmacological treatment to delay the progression of dementia. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Endocytic system dysfunction is one of the earliest disturbances that occur in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and may underlie the selective vulnerability of cholinergic basal forebrain (CBF) neurons during the progression of dementia. 3 key findings →

Evidence: low

The past decade has shed new light on the etiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD), which is the consequence of interactions between numerous lesions. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Among the atrophic brain regions in aMCI, VSTM performance correlated with the volume of the right prefrontal cortex (PFC) but not the medial temporal lobe (MTL), and this correlation was mainly present in patients with greater MTL atrophy. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

We identified specific miRNA groups, mRNA targets, and signaling pathways distinguishing AD, MCI, resilience, ante mortem neuropsychological test performance, post mortem neuropathological burden, and AD risk. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Our results showed that: (a) Behavioral data analysis: there were significant differences in accuracy and accuracy / reaction time between MCI and NC in tasks with memory load capacity of low load-four and high load-six, especially in tasks with memory load capacity of four. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Underreporters showed lower cognitive performance (p = 0.021), which did not translate into higher self-report SMC (p = 0.092). 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) presents significant challenges in clinical practice due to its heterogeneous manifestation and variable progression rates. 3 key findings →

Participants: 504 Evidence: low

EMCIs and LMCIs, especially LMCIs, exhibited poorer performance in almost all global and multidimensional cognitive tests. 5 key findings →

Participants: 35 Evidence: low

Our multi-omics study revealed distinct gut microbiota and metabolite alterations in PD patients with cognitive impairment, highlighting gut-brain axis dysfunction. 5 key findings →

Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

Antioxidant strategies for Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2002-05-01

Oxidative damage is present within the brains of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and is observed within every class of biomolecule, including nucleic acids, proteins, lipids and carbohydrates. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ 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