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 31 studies in Mild cognitive impairment published 2012 (page 1 of 2) · 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.

Cholinesterase inhibitors for mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2012-09-12

Main results Nine studies (from eight published reports) of 5149 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (however defined) were included in the review. 5 key findings →

Design: meta-analysis Participants: 5,149 Evidence: high

However, few longitudinal Pittsburgh compound B-positron emission tomography studies have tested this hypothesis, and with conflicting results. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 32 Evidence: moderate

An algorithm-derived diagnosis of aMCI showed few sociodemographic associations but was consistently associated with higher disability and neuropsychiatric symptoms in addition to showing substantial variation in prevalence across LAMIC populations. 4 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 15,376 Evidence: moderate

Twelve months' treatment with doxycycline or rifampin, alone or in combination, has no beneficial effects on cognition or function in AD. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 305 Evidence: high

This study provides initial data that demonstrate elevated antibodies to periodontal disease bacteria in subjects years before cognitive impairment and suggests that periodontal disease could potentially contribute to the risk of AD onset/progression. 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 158 Evidence: moderate

Studies with larger sample sizes, longer intervention periods, different fish oil dosages and genetic determinations should be investigated before definite recommendations can be made. 1 key finding →

Participants: 18 Evidence: high

Predicting future clinical changes of MCI patients using longitudinal and multimodal biomarkers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. PloS one 2012-03-22

Accurate prediction of clinical changes of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients, including both qualitative change (i.e., conversion to Alzheimer's disease (AD)) and quantitative change (i.e., cognitive scores) at future time points, is important for early diagnosis of AD and for monitoring the disease progression. 1 key finding →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Incidence rates for MCI are higher than previously reported, particularly in men and for single-domain MCI; rates for amnestic and nonamnestic MCI were comparable. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Our meta-analysis identified similar distributions of neuroanatomical changes in AD and MCI, which are consistent with the hierarchical model of neuropathological alterations of neurofibrillary tangles in AD and MCI. 2 key findings →

Design: systematic review Evidence: high

Identification of potentially modifiable risk factors for cognitive deterioration is important. 5 key findings →

Participants: 5,607 Evidence: low

Alternatively, lesser engagement in social activities may be a marker of impending cognitive decline in MCI. 1 key finding →

Design: cohort study Participants: 78 Evidence: moderate

A significant increase in global cortical [(11)C]PIB BP(ND) was found in MCI patients, but no changes were observed in AD patients or controls. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Low Aβ42 was the strongest predictor of clinical progression in patients with subjective complaints. 3 key findings →

Participants: 127 Evidence: low

[(11)C]PIB retention in the neocortical and subcortical brain regions was significantly higher in AD patients than in age-matched controls. 3 key findings →

Participants: 97 Evidence: low

Fornix FA both cross-sectionally correlated with and longitudinally predicted memory decline and progression to AD. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

[(11)C]PIB scans were positive in 40 of 66 (61%) patients with a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), 5 of 18 (28%) patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), 4 of 5 (80%) patients with Lewy body dementia, and 3 of 10 (30%) patients with other dementias. [(18)F]FDG uptake patterns matched the clinical diagnosis in 38 of 66 (58%) of AD patients, and in 6 of 18 (33%) FTD patients. 4 key findings →

Participants: 39 Evidence: low

Predicting Alzheimer's disease (AD) in individuals with some symptoms of cognitive decline may have great influence on treatment choice and disease progression. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Plasma microRNA biomarkers for detection of mild cognitive impairment

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Aging 2012-09-01

Early stages of many neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, vascular and frontotemporal dementia, and Parkinson's disease, are frequently associated with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Proline isomer-specific antibodies reveal the early pathogenic tau conformation in Alzheimer's disease

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 49 out of 100. Cell 2012-03-01

cis-trans isomerization of proteins phosphorylated by proline-directed kinases is proposed to control numerous signaling molecules and is implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's and other diseases. 5 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

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent form of dementia with an estimated worldwide prevalence of over 30 million people, and its incidence is expected to increase dramatically with an increasing elderly population. 1 key finding →

Participants: 85 Evidence: low

Since the description by Alois Alzheimer, more than 50 years have passed during which senile dementia and pre-senile dementia have been considered Alzheimer disease (AD) on the basis of their common neuropathological and clinical manifestations. 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