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 146 studies in Mild cognitive impairment published 2025 (page 1 of 6) · 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.

Repeated plasma p‐tau217 measurements to monitor clinical progression heterogeneity

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-05-01

Three progression clusters emerged in both cohorts: stable cognition, slow decline, and rapid decline-each including cases initially classified as CN or MCI. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 186 Evidence: moderate

Four progression pathways were concluded from our analyses, cognitive stability (32.8 %), sequential MCI-only decline (34.9 %), accelerated MCI-to-dementia progression (15.8 %), and rapid direct conversion (16.5 %). 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,136 Evidence: moderate

Eighty older adults with MCI (median age 86.50 years) participated, with an average attendance rate of 86.25% in the intervention group. 5 key findings →

Design: randomized controlled trial Evidence: high

(n = 16,683) had an average age of 69.07 ± 7.34, 72.04% were female, and had an average of 16.66 ± 2.26 years of education. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 16,683 Evidence: moderate

Among the participants, 377 (93.5%) reported subjective memory complaints. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 403 Evidence: moderate

Self- and Informant-Report Cognitive Decline Discordance and Mild Cognitive Impairment Diagnosis

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 56 out of 100. JAMA Network Open 2025-04-18

ADNI participants (921 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (7) years and mean (SD) of 17 (3) years of education; 485 (53%) were female, 30 (3%) were Asian, 105 (11%) were Black, and 756 (82%) were White. eVAL participants (279 dyads) had a mean (SD) age of 71 (8) years and mean (SD) of 17 (2) years of education; 151 (54%) were female, 17 (6%) were Asian, 12 (4%) were Black, and 245 (88%) were White. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 921 Evidence: moderate

NPS was longitudinally associated with performance in each cognitive domain. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,247 Evidence: moderate

The data of 508,107 individuals were analyzed (mean [standard deviation] age, 67.6 [10.7] years; 66.8% women and 33.2% men), and 39,318 developed Alzheimer's disease (22,572 controls and 16,746 using aspirin). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Participants: 508,107 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

• Low ALPS index was significantly associated with high risk of MCI, and the risk of MCI decreased linearly with a higher ALPS index • High ALPS index was dose-dependently associated with a decreased progression from MCI to AD • High ALPS index may delay the MCI onset approximately 3.8 years among CN participants and delay MCI progression to AD by approximately 3.5 years in MCI group • Aβ in choroid plexus, tau in part of the cortex and executive function were partially mediate ALPS-AD association We aimed to explore the association between ALPS index and both risks of MCI from cognitively normal (CN) and incident AD progressed from MCI, as well as potential mediating factors. 1 key finding →

Participants: 519 Evidence: moderate

In linear mixed models, vascular endothelial growth factor was significantly associated with incident DWI-positive lesions over 1 year. 5 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Participants: 181 Evidence: moderate

Subjects with PD-SCD do not consistently show cognitive decline, but rather exhibit a heterogeneous progression. 4 key findings →

Participants: 198 Evidence: moderate

In men, increasing depressive symptoms were associated with significantly steeper rates of cognitive decline, as measured by global cognitive and functional outcomes, and with an increased risk of dementia compared to consistently low depressive symptoms. 5 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 811 Evidence: moderate

Blood biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are promising for dementia prediction, but their association with progression across intermediate stages of cognitive decline in the general population remains unclear. 3 key findings →

Evidence: moderate

This study aims to identify depressive risks in elderly individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and develop a predictive model using machine learning algorithms to enable timely interventions. 3 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a significant and increasingly recognized problem in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). 2 key findings →

Design: prospective cohort Participants: 100 Evidence: moderate

• Longitudinal imaging-genetics study of hippocampal atrophy trajectories over 5 years in ADNI. • APOE -ε4 carriership and ApoE CSF proteomic quantitative trait loci are key genetic drivers of accelerated hippocampal atrophy in amyloid-positive MCI. • Genetic effects are stage-specific, with strongest associations during the prodromal phase of AD. • Sex differences in atrophy rates are observed, but do not significantly alter genetic influences. • Findings support the utility of APOE and functional genetic markers as stratification tools for early neurodegeneration in AD. 4 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study Participants: 1,051 Evidence: moderate

AI-powered model for accurate prediction of MCI-to-AD progression

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 2025-02-10

Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains a formidable challenge in modern healthcare, necessitating innovative approaches for its early detection and intervention. 2 key findings →

Design: longitudinal study 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