{{ signal.label }}
{{ signal.source }}
{{ signal.message }}
{{ signal.action }}
| Score | Zone | Band | Intervention |
|---|---|---|---|
| {{ zone.rangeLabel }} | {{ zone.whoZone }} | {{ zone.label }} | {{ zone.interventionLabel }} |
AUDIT-10 is a screening instrument. Use the score with qualified professional judgment for diagnosis, withdrawal planning, or treatment decisions.
These cues explain why the current follow-up lane looks the way it does and where discussion is most likely to matter first.
{{ signal.message }}
{{ signal.action }}
| Focus area | Why it stands out | Suggested follow-up |
|---|---|---|
| {{ row.label }} | {{ row.reason }} | {{ row.action }} |
Questions 1 to 3 reflect consumption, Questions 4 to 6 reflect dependence symptoms, and Questions 7 to 10 reflect alcohol-related harm and outside concern.
| Domain | Score | Share | Band | What stands out |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{ domain.label }} | {{ domain.total }}/{{ domain.max }} | {{ domain.percentLabel }} | {{ domain.bandLabel }} | {{ domain.readout }} |
Use the item chart to see which answers are contributing most of the total and whether the pressure sits in heavy episodes, dependence symptoms, or harm-related items.
| # | Question | Answer | Score | Domain | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.id }} | {{ row.text }} | {{ row.answer }} | {{ row.score }}/4 | {{ row.domainLabel }} | {{ row.signalLabel }} |
The full AUDIT-10 is useful because alcohol risk is not captured by one number about weekly volume. The questionnaire asks about drinking frequency, typical quantity, heavier occasions, difficulty stopping, missed responsibilities, morning drinking, guilt, memory gaps, alcohol-related injury, and concern voiced by other people. Those signals can point in different directions even when the total score looks similar.
This tool keeps the standard ten-item screen intact, scores the answers from 0 to 40, and places the raw total into the World Health Organization lane structure used for AUDIT follow-up. It then adds a practical review layer around the formal score: domain totals for consumption, dependence, and harm, a promoted follow-up lane when specific WHO escalation cues appear, a priority-signal list, a domain chart, an item chart, a full answer table, and a JSON record for structured follow-up.
That extra structure matters because two people can land on the same total for different reasons. One result may be driven mostly by frequent drinking and heavier occasions. Another may be driven by morning drinking, blackouts, injury, or repeated concern from others. The follow-up conversation should not sound the same in both cases, and this page is built to keep that distinction visible.
Screening can be useful precisely because it creates a next step. WHO and NIAAA both frame alcohol screening as a practical doorway to brief advice, closer review, or referral when risk is higher. This page follows that spirit by making the score easy to read before you move into the charts, tables, or exports.
Routine scoring stays in the browser unless you choose to export or share the result. Even so, copied links and exported files can preserve the answer pattern, the selected review context, and any baseline comparison. Treat those records as private. Also remember what the page does not do: it does not diagnose alcohol use disorder, estimate withdrawal danger, or replace urgent clinical help when drinking is tied to injury, blackouts, pregnancy, medication interactions, liver disease, or feeling unsafe.
The scoring core is simple. Each answer is worth 0 to 4 points, and the page adds the ten item scores without weighting. The result is a total from 0 to 40. The page also groups the answers into three tool-visible domains: consumption for Questions 1 to 3, dependence for Questions 4 to 6, and harm for Questions 7 to 10.
| Score range | WHO zone | Band shown here | Usual follow-up frame |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 to 7 | Zone I | Low Risk | Alcohol education and reinforcement of lower-risk or alcohol-free patterns. |
| 8 to 15 | Zone II | Hazardous | Simple advice and a clearer cut-down plan. |
| 16 to 19 | Zone III | Harmful | Simple advice plus brief counseling and continued monitoring. |
| 20 to 40 | Zone IV | Possible Dependence | Specialist diagnostic evaluation and treatment review. |
The main extra rule in this page is the promoted follow-up lane. WHO guidance for AUDIT says the next higher intervention level should be considered when Questions 4, 5, or 6 score 2 or more, or when Questions 9 or 10 score 4. This page applies that rule directly. If a promotion cue appears and the raw total is not already in the highest zone, the follow-up lane is raised by one level.
| Layer | What the page adds | Why it helps |
|---|---|---|
| Domain pattern | Consumption, dependence, and harm totals are shown as points and percent of domain maximum. | Shows whether the score is being carried mainly by amount, loss of control, or consequences. |
| Domain band labels | The page marks each domain as Contained, Rising, Elevated, or Concentrated based on the percent of that domain maximum. | Keeps the domain table readable without inventing a second official diagnosis. |
| Priority signals | Recent injury, outside concern, memory gaps, heavier occasions, and morning drinking can be surfaced as practical review cues. | Makes the answer pattern easier to discuss than a total score alone. |
| Review context | Self-check, primary care, behavioral health, and addiction services change the wording around follow-up. | Lets the same score be framed for the setting without changing the score itself. |
| Baseline comparison | An optional prior AUDIT-10 total can be entered to show change. | Useful for repeat reviews, while leaving the current score and lane rules untouched. |
| Answer audit and JSON | Every item stays visible with its answer, 0 to 4 score, domain label, and a signal label from None to Very high. | Prevents the total from becoming detached from the ten answers that created it. |
One wording detail is worth calling out. Question 3 keeps the original AUDIT threshold of six or more drinks on one occasion. NIAAA notes that U.S.-adapted quick screens often use five drinks for men and four for women instead, but this page follows the original AUDIT wording because it is scoring the full ten-item instrument rather than a U.S.-adapted short form.
The technical limits are just as important as the scoring rules. A total of 20 or higher can justify referral, but it is not a formal diagnosis by itself. A lower score can still matter when someone is having blackouts, injuries, pregnancy-related concerns, alcohol-medication interactions, liver disease, or withdrawal symptoms. The page organizes screening results. It does not replace diagnosis, detox planning, or emergency assessment.
Answer for your usual pattern across the last 12 months, not only the last celebration, vacation, relapse, or rough week. AUDIT works best when the answers reflect the broader pattern that would matter in an actual screening conversation. If one unusual stretch dominates your memory, the result may describe that episode more than the year.
It also helps to count drinks honestly before you start. Standard-drink math is one of the easiest places to undercount, especially with strong pours, large wine glasses, tall beers, or cocktails that contain more than one serving of alcohol. The more accurate the drink count, the more useful Questions 2 and 3 become.
Once the result appears, read it in a fixed order. Start with the total score and the raw WHO zone. Then check whether the follow-up lane matches the raw zone or has been promoted. After that, look at the strongest domain and the first one or two priority signals. By the time you reach the Domain Score Map and Item Pressure Map, you should already know whether the main issue is quantity, loss of control, or harm.
The review-context selector is best used after the scoring is complete. It does not rescue a weak result or intensify a strong one. What it does is make the write-up sound more natural for self-review, primary care, behavioral health, or addiction-services follow-up. The same rule applies to the previous-score field. Use it only when you really have another complete AUDIT-10 total to compare against.
The strongest way to use the page is as a bridge to a real decision. If the result stays in Zone I, it can support a keep-it-low-risk conversation. If it crosses the 8-point screening threshold, that is usually the point to stop treating drinking as background noise. If the page promotes the follow-up lane because of dependence or recent-harm items, read those signals carefully before you reassure yourself with a merely moderate total.
The raw score tells you where the total lands. The follow-up lane tells you whether the answer pattern calls for a stronger response than the total alone. That distinction is the most important thing this page adds beyond a simple AUDIT calculator.
| Visible cue | Best first reading | What to check next |
|---|---|---|
| Total stays below 8 | The formal screen stays in Zone I. | Look for non-zero harm items or a standout signal before you treat the result as routine. |
| Raw zone and follow-up lane match | No WHO promotion cue raised the next-step lane above the raw score band. | Use the strongest domain and item chart to understand what kind of risk is producing the total. |
| WHO lane promoted | One or more dependence or recent-harm items justify a stronger response than the raw total alone. | Read the promotion source and priority signals before relying on the total score summary. |
| Consumption is strongest | Quantity and heavier occasions are carrying most of the score. | Start with frequency, typical drinks, and six-plus occasions. |
| Dependence is strongest | Loss of control, role impact, or morning drinking is carrying much of the score. | Do not reduce the discussion to quantity alone. |
| Harm is strongest | Blackouts, injury, guilt, or outside concern are prominent. | Check whether the page is pointing to recent safety problems that need faster review. |
| Change versus previous score | The current total moved relative to another full AUDIT-10 run. | Use the change as context, not as a substitute for reading the current item pattern. |
A low or moderate total does not erase obvious risk. A person can score below the highest bands and still need prompt help because of repeated blackouts, recent injury, pregnancy, withdrawal concern, or drinking that is colliding with medication use or medical illness. The reverse is also true: a higher score is serious, but it still needs context before anyone leaps from screening to diagnosis.
If you are using the page for repeat monitoring, compare like with like. The most defensible comparison is one complete AUDIT-10 run against another complete AUDIT-10 run, both answered for the same past-year frame. That is when the optional baseline field becomes helpful instead of misleading.
Imagine a total of 10 with regular drinking, a moderate typical quantity, and monthly six-plus occasions, but no strong dependence or recent-harm items. The raw zone lands in Zone II and the follow-up lane stays there. In that pattern, the main discussion is usually about cutting down, alcohol-free days, and lowering the frequency of heavier occasions rather than about clear dependence signs.
Now imagine a total of 13 with Question 4 or 5 scored at 2 and Question 6 also above zero. The raw score still sits in Zone II, but the page promotes the follow-up lane because the WHO next-higher-level rule has been met. That is exactly the kind of result where the total alone understates the concern.
Suppose the total is 17 and Question 9 shows a recent injury related to drinking. The raw zone is Zone III, yet the recent-harm cue can push the follow-up lane to Zone IV. In practical terms, the injury history becomes part of the reason the next step should move beyond brief advice and toward fuller diagnostic review.
No. It is a strong screening result that usually justifies diagnostic evaluation and treatment review, but the page does not make a formal diagnosis on its own.
Because the page applies WHO promotion cues. Dependence items at 2 or more, or recent injury or outside concern at 4, can justify moving the follow-up lane one step higher.
This page follows the original international AUDIT wording. Some U.S. short screens use different heavy-drinking thresholds, but this tool is scoring the full ten-item AUDIT.
No. The baseline field only adds comparison language. It does not change the current total, the raw zone, or the promotion rules.
Routine scoring stays in the browser and there is no tool-specific backend for this page. The privacy risk comes from shared links and exported files that preserve the answer pattern.
Do that when drinking is tied to injury, blackouts, withdrawal symptoms, pregnancy, major medical complications, or feeling unsafe, or when others are urgently concerned. Those situations need human review, not just another score.