PsychoPharmRef
Clinical pharmacology reference for psychiatric medications.
Psychopharmacology
Drug database, P450 enzyme interactions, receptor binding profiles, and receptor pharmacology glossary.
Glossary
Psychiatry-specific language with concise definitions, cross-links, and tool/chapter references. Search the bar above for instant inline previews.
Clinical Tools
Interactive clinical decision support tools for QT prolongation risk assessment and medication refill scheduling.
Neuroscience
Neuropsychiatric cognitive domains, classic neurocircuits, and brain region involvement across major psychiatric diagnoses.
Chapters
Clinical commentary, pharmacology explainers, and case-based learning.
PsychoPharmRef Newsletter
AI-assisted reviews of newly published psychiatric research, FDA approvals, and guideline updates — distilled into clinically actionable summaries. Free, independent, no pharma funding.
Drug Database
| Drug | Class | Active Enantiomer | Half-Life (Parent) | Active Metabolites | Renal Adjust | Hepatic Adjust | Geriatric | QT Prolongation | Protein Binding | Pregnancy | Breastfeeding | Pre / Post-Synaptic Binding | Receptor Chart |
|---|
P450 Interactions
CYP enzyme interactions for all medications. S = Substrate • Inhibitor strength shown in color • Ind = Inducer
| Drug | Class | CYP1A2 | CYP2B6 | CYP2C9 | CYP2C19 | CYP2D6 | CYP3A4 |
|---|
Receptor Binding Profiles
Ki values in nM (lower = higher affinity). Pie shows relative affinity (1/Ki normalized). Bar charts show pKi = −log10(Ki) per drug class.
Side-by-Side Drug Comparison
Select any two medications to compare their receptor binding profiles directly.
Class Comparisons — pKi by Receptor
Each chart shows all drugs in a class. Y-axis: pKi = −log10(Ki nM). Higher bar = stronger affinity. Switch to treemap view for an area-based hierarchy that can be easier to compare across many drugs.
Receptor Glossary
Clinical effects of receptor activation or inhibition. Expand any receptor for a full breakdown of benefits and side effects.
Psychiatry Glossary
A working clinical dictionary of psychiatry-specific language — phenomenology, diagnoses, defense mechanisms, eponyms, scales, and neuroanatomy. Search above for instant definition previews.
Pharmacokinetic Curve Comparison
Compare estimated plasma concentration curves across medications. Select a category, then choose up to 8 drugs to overlay. Peak height is scaled by primary receptor binding affinity (lower Ki = stronger binding = taller peak). The dot on each curve marks one half-life after peak concentration.
Curves use a simplified Bateman equation (single-compartment oral absorption model). Peak height is proportional to primary receptor binding affinity. Actual pharmacokinetics vary with food, genetics, formulation, drug interactions, and individual metabolism. Not for clinical dosing decisions.
References & Methods
Data sources, methodology, and direct FDA labeling access.
🔍 FDA Drug@FDA Search
Search the official FDA Drug@FDA database directly at accessdata.fda.gov. Enter any medication name to open its FDA labeling page.
⚙ Methods — How Data Is Calculated
Receptor Binding Affinity (Ki Values)
Receptor binding data is expressed as the inhibition constant Ki (nM) — the concentration of drug required to occupy 50% of a receptor in a competitive binding assay. Lower Ki values indicate stronger binding affinity. All Ki values are sourced from in vitro radioligand binding studies, primarily the NIMH Psychoactive Drug Screening Program (PDSP) database, FDA-approved prescribing information, and peer-reviewed pharmacology literature.
Ki values of ≥10,000 nM are treated as negligible affinity and displayed as "—" in charts. For visualization, Ki is converted to pKi using the formula:
This transforms Ki in nanomolar units to the equivalent of −log10(Ki in molar), producing values typically between 5 and 10 where higher numbers indicate stronger binding. The pie chart displays relative affinity normalized from 1/Ki values (receptors with Ki ≥5,000 nM excluded).
Side Effect Risk Scores
Side effect risk scores estimate the likelihood that a drug will cause a given clinical side effect based on its receptor binding profile. Scores range from 0 to 100 (higher = greater predicted risk) and are calculated as follows:
- Receptor-to-side-effect mapping: Each side effect is linked to one or more receptors known to mediate it, each assigned a clinical weight (0–1.0) based on the strength of the pharmacological evidence. For example, sedation is driven primarily by H₁ antagonism (weight 1.0), with secondary contributions from α₁ (0.5) and M₁ (0.3).
- Affinity normalization: For each relevant receptor, the drug's Ki value is converted to a 0–1 affinity score using the pKi scale: normalized = max(0, (pKi − 5) / 4). This maps the range Ki=10,000 nM (pKi=5 → score 0) to Ki=1 nM (pKi=9 → score 1). Drugs with Ki ≥10,000 nM score 0.
- Weighted average: The final score is the weighted average of normalized affinity scores across all receptors in the profile, multiplied by 100: Score = (Σ weight × normalized) / Σ weight × 100.
- Risk thresholds: Scores are binned as: Very Low (<20), Low (20–39), Moderate (40–59), High (60–79), Very High (≥80).
| Side Effect | Receptor Drivers (weight) |
|---|---|
| Sedation / Drowsiness | H₁ (1.0), α₁ (0.5), M₁ (0.3) |
| Weight Gain | H₁ (1.0), 5HT₂C (0.9), M₁ (0.2) |
| Dry Mouth / Constipation | M₁ (1.0) |
| Orthostatic Hypotension | α₁ (1.0), α₂ (0.3) |
| Sexual Dysfunction | SERT (1.0), 5HT₂A (0.4) |
| EPS / Akathisia | D₂ (1.0), D₃ (0.5) |
| Metabolic Effects | 5HT₂C (1.0), H₁ (0.8), M₁ (0.2) |
| Insomnia / Activation | DAT (1.0), NET (0.9), SERT (0.3) |
| Hyperprolactinemia | D₂ (1.0) |
| Nausea / GI Upset | SERT (0.8), D₂ (0.6) |
| Cognitive Impairment | M₁ (1.0), H₁ (0.7), α₁ (0.3) |
| Cardiac / QT Effects | H₁ (0.5), α₁ (0.6) |
⚠ Important caveat: Side effect scores are derived from in vitro receptor binding data and represent a pharmacological prediction — not a clinical probability. They do not account for pharmacokinetic factors (bioavailability, CNS penetration, active metabolites), dose-dependence, individual patient variability, or clinical trial incidence data. Scores should be interpreted as a comparative tool to guide discussion, not as definitive risk estimates.
Pregnancy & Breastfeeding Data
Pregnancy classifications use the historical FDA letter category system (A/B/C/D/X), which remains widely referenced clinically despite being replaced by the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule (PLLR) for drugs approved after 2015. Drugs approved under PLLR are labeled "N/A" for category.
Breastfeeding classifications use Hale's Lactation Risk Categories (L1–L5):
- L1 — Safest: Extensively studied; no adverse effects in infant; not orally bioavailable in infant.
- L2 — Safer: Limited studies show no increase in adverse effects; risk to infant is remote.
- L3 — Moderately Safe: No controlled studies; risk of adverse effects possible; give only if benefit outweighs risk.
- L4 — Possibly Hazardous: Positive evidence of risk to infant; benefits may be acceptable in life-threatening situations.
- L5 — Contraindicated: Risk clearly outweighs any benefit.
Sources: FDA prescribing information, NIH LactMed database, Hale's Medications and Mothers' Milk (2023), Briggs Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation (12th ed.).
QTc Calculator & Tisdale Risk Score
QTc values are calculated using the Bazett formula (QTc = QT / √RR) and the Fridericia formula (QTc = QT / ∛RR), where RR = 60/HR in seconds. Fridericia is recommended at heart rates <50 or >100 bpm as Bazett over-corrects at extremes.
The Tisdale Risk Score is reproduced from: Tisdale JE, et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(4):479–487. It was validated in hospitalized patients; application in outpatient settings should be interpreted with appropriate clinical judgment.
📚 General References
- NIMH Psychoactive Drug Screening Program (PDSP) Ki Database. pdsp.unc.edu
- FDA Drug@FDA Database. accessdata.fda.gov
- NIH LactMed Database. nlm.nih.gov/lactmed
- Stahl SM. Stahl's Essential Psychopharmacology: Neuroscientific Basis and Practical Applications. 5th ed. Cambridge University Press; 2021.
- Hale TW. Medications and Mothers' Milk. 2023 ed. Springer; 2023.
- Briggs GG, Freeman RK, Towers CV, Forinash AB. Drugs in Pregnancy and Lactation. 12th ed. Wolters Kluwer; 2021.
- Tisdale JE, et al. Development and validation of a risk score to predict QT interval prolongation in hospitalized patients. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(4):479–487.
- Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry (ACLP). How-To Guide: QTc Prolongation. 2020.
- Woosley RL, Heise CW, Gallo T, et al. CredibleMeds / AZCERT QTDrugs List. crediblemeds.org
- Roden DM. Drug-induced prolongation of the QT interval. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1013–1022.
- Drew BJ, et al. Prevention of Torsade de Pointes in Hospital Settings. Circulation. 2010;121:1047–1060.
QT Prolongation Risk Tool
QTc calculator, Tisdale risk scoring, drug reference lists, and monitoring guidance. For educational use — always verify with current clinical resources.
What Is QT Prolongation?
The QT interval on an ECG represents ventricular depolarization (QRS) plus repolarization (T wave). Prolongation of the QT interval reflects delayed ventricular repolarization, creating a vulnerable window during which an early depolarization can trigger a potentially fatal arrhythmia.
Because the QT interval varies with heart rate, a corrected QTc is calculated to normalize for rate. The most widely used formula is Bazett's, though Fridericia's is preferred at very high or low heart rates.
QTc Thresholds
Torsades de Pointes (TdP) & Risk Factors
Torsades de Pointes (TdP) is a polymorphic ventricular tachycardia characterized by a "twisting" QRS morphology around the isoelectric axis. It can degenerate into ventricular fibrillation and sudden cardiac death.
Patient-Level Risk Factors
- Female sex — longer baseline QTc; ~70% of TdP cases
- Age ≥65 — reduced repolarization reserve
- Hypokalemia (K+ <3.5 mEq/L) — most important electrolyte
- Hypomagnesemia — Mg²⁺ <0.8 mEq/L
- Hypocalcemia
- Bradycardia (<50 bpm) — rate-dependent TdP risk
- Heart failure — reduced repolarization reserve
- Myocardial infarction / ischemia
- Congenital long QT syndrome
- Hypothyroidism
- Hepatic impairment — increases drug exposure
- Anorexia nervosa — electrolyte depletion
Monitoring Recommendations
Before Starting a QT-Prolonging Agent
- Obtain baseline ECG with QTc measurement
- Review all concurrent medications for additive QT risk (CredibleMeds / AZCERT database)
- Measure and correct electrolytes (K⁺, Mg²⁺, Ca²⁺) before initiation
- Assess for congenital long QT syndrome risk (family/personal history of sudden death, syncope)
- Assess renal and hepatic function — affects drug clearance and exposure
During Treatment
- Repeat ECG 1–2 weeks after initiation and after dose increases
- For high-risk agents (e.g., methadone, haloperidol IV, clozapine): ECG at 1 week, 1 month, then periodically
- Monitor electrolytes regularly, especially with diuretics, vomiting, or poor oral intake
- Educate patient on symptoms: palpitations, dizziness, syncope, presyncope
Action Thresholds
▶ QTc Calculator
Enter the measured QT interval and heart rate from the ECG. QTc is calculated using both Bazett and Fridericia formulas.
▶ Tisdale QT Risk Score
Validated risk scoring tool for predicting QT prolongation in hospitalized patients (Tisdale et al., Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes, 2013). Each item adds to a cumulative risk score.
Originally validated in inpatient settings. Use in outpatient context as a general guide to identify high-burden patients.
▶ Non-Psychiatric Medications with QT Risk
Commonly prescribed medications outside psychiatry that prolong the QT interval. Risk classification based on CredibleMeds / AZCERT and published literature. This does not replace the CredibleMeds database — always verify current risk status.
▶ Psychiatric Medications with QT Risk
Medications in the database flagged for QT prolongation. Click any drug name to open its full detail modal.
▶ References
- Tisdale JE, et al. Development and validation of a risk score to predict QT interval prolongation in hospitalized patients. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(4):479–487.
- Tisdale JE, et al. Drug-Induced QT Interval Prolongation and Torsades de Pointes: Role of the Pharmacist in Risk Assessment, Prevention and Management. Can Pharm J (Ott). 2016;149(3):139–152.
- Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry (ACLP). How-To Guide: QTc Prolongation. 2020. Available at: aclponline.org.
- Woosley RL, Heise CW, Gallo T, et al. CredibleMeds / AZCERT. Available at: crediblemeds.org. [QTDrugs List — updated continuously]
- Nachimuthu S, Assar MD, Schussler JM. Drug-induced QT interval prolongation: mechanisms and clinical management. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2012;3(5):241–253.
- Roden DM. Drug-Induced Prolongation of the QT Interval. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1013–1022.
- Drew BJ, et al. Prevention of Torsade de Pointes in Hospital Settings: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2010;121:1047–1060.
Refill Calendar
Tools for tracking controlled and restricted medication fills — days between dates, usage analysis, and refill date projection.
📅 Days Between Two Dates
Calculate the exact number of days between any two dates.
⚙ Usage Calculator
Estimate average daily use, monthly consumption, and percentage over- or underuse compared to the prescribed regimen.
▶ Forward Refill Dates
Enter a fill date and days supply to project the next 6 refill dates.
◀ Reverse Refill Tracker
Enter the most recent fill date and expected days between fills to estimate when the previous 6 fills should have occurred.
🔄 Medication Sync
Align two medications to a common refill date using a one-time short fill. Enter each medication's last fill date, days supply, quantity dispensed, and daily dose.
Cognitive Domains
Cognitive domains, standardized screening instruments, and clinical interpretation.
🧠 Overview of Cognitive Domains
Cognitive functioning is organized into hierarchical domains. Lower-order domains involve basic sensory and motor processing; higher-order domains involve reasoning, memory, and executive control. Impairments rarely occur in isolation — executive functioning, at the top of the hierarchy, depends on the integrity of every domain below it.
Domain conceptualization follows Harvey PD. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(3):227–237. Domain numbering reflects bottom-up hierarchy (1 = most basic).
The top-down set of processes that coordinate and control all other cognitive domains. Includes planning, abstract reasoning, impulse inhibition, and the ability to shift strategies in response to feedback. Requires intactness of every lower domain. Classical tests include the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Perseverative errors — repeating a response strategy already known to be incorrect — are a hallmark failure.
- Trail Making (1→A→2→B…) — alternating sequence tests set-shifting 1 pt
- Clock drawing — planning and organization 3 pts
- Abstraction (train–bicycle; ruler–watch) — conceptual reasoning 2 pts
- Serial 7s — sustained calculation/mental control 3 pts
- Math word problem ($100 − $3 − $20) — calculation and reasoning 3 pts
- Clock drawing — planning and visuospatial organization 4 pts
- Story recall involves narrative organization strategy 8 pts
Impaired in: Schizophrenia (problem-solving, organization), ADHD (impulsivity, inattention), OCD (inefficient processing), depression, frontostriatal degenerative conditions, TBI.
The rate at which cognitive tasks are performed. Often the most impaired domain in schizophrenia and most strongly correlated with functional impairment. Processing speed affects performance on "non-speeded" tasks as well, since even list learning presents stimuli at a fixed rate. Prototypical tasks include Symbol Coding and Trail Making Part A.
- Verbal fluency (F words, 1 min) — timed output reflects processing speed 1 pt
- Trail Making has implicit speed demand in clinical use
- Note: MoCA does not include a dedicated processing speed task
- Animal fluency (1 min) — timed semantic retrieval reflects processing speed 3 pts
- Note: SLUMS does not include a dedicated processing speed task
Impaired in: Schizophrenia (most impaired domain), major depression, Parkinson's disease, frontostriatal degenerative conditions. Less affected by normal aging than working memory.
Includes both receptive and expressive language: understanding instructions, accessing semantic memory to name objects, and generating verbal output. Fluency tasks require naming as many members of a category (or letter) as possible in one minute. Naming deficits (anomia) are more characteristic of cortical dementia (Alzheimer's) than frontostriatal conditions.
- Animal naming — 3 pictures (lion, rhino, camel) 3 pts
- Sentence repetition — 2 sentences, exact repetition required 2 pts
- Verbal fluency — words beginning with F, ≥11 words = 1 pt 1 pt
- Animal fluency — category (animals, 1 min): 0–4 = 0pt, 5–9 = 1pt, 10–14 = 2pt, 15+ = 3pt 3 pts
Impaired in: Alzheimer's disease (naming > fluency), frontostriatal dementia (fluency more than naming), stroke/aphasia, schizophrenia (executive access to semantic storage).
The most complex and multifaceted cognitive domain. Working memory holds information in consciousness for immediate use (maintenance) and operates on it (manipulation). Episodic memory involves encoding, storing, and retrieving personally experienced events. Distinguishing encoding failure from retrieval failure is clinically important: retrieval failure improves with cueing; encoding failure does not. Semantic memory stores general world knowledge and is relatively preserved in aging. Prospective memory — remembering to carry out future intentions — is implicated in medication adherence.
- Forward digit span 2-1-8-5-4 — working memory maintenance 1 pt
- Backward digit span 7-4-2 — working memory manipulation 1 pt
- Word list (FACE, VELVET, CHURCH, DAISY, RED) × 2 trials — encoding; no points 0 pts
- Delayed free recall (5 words after ~5 min) — episodic retrieval 5 pts
- Memory Index Score (MIS) — distinguishes retrieval vs encoding failure (category cues × 2, forced-choice × 1) sub-score /15
- Orientation (date, month, year, day, place, city) — semantic/temporal orientation 6 pts
- Orientation: day, year, state 3 pts
- 5 objects encoding (Apple, Pen, Tie, House, Car) — no points for encoding 0 pts
- 5 objects recall — episodic retrieval 5 pts
- Digit span backwards (87 → 78; 648 → 846; 8537 → 7358) — working memory manipulation 2 pts
- Story recall (Jill the stockbroker) — narrative episodic memory (4 questions × 2 pts) 8 pts
Impaired in: Alzheimer's disease (encoding + delayed recall + recognition all impaired), frontostriatal dementia (encoding + recall impaired, but recognition/cued recall often spared), schizophrenia (episodic + prospective memory), normal aging (working memory, processing-speed-dependent tasks).
Selective attention is the ability to attend to relevant information while ignoring distractors. Sustained attention (vigilance) refers to maintaining detection over time — classically assessed with the Continuous Performance Test (CPT), where the patient taps on a specific target letter in a stream. Errors of omission (missing targets) are common in psychosis; errors of commission (false positives) predominate in ADHD. Divided/dual-task attention requires processing two information streams simultaneously and becomes automated with practice.
- Letter A vigilance (tap at each A in letter stream) — sustained attention, CPT analog 1 pt
- Serial 7s (100−7 five times) — focused concentration, resistance to interference 3 pts
- Shape identification (place X in triangle; identify largest figure) — selective visual attention 2 pts
- Math word problem requires sustained attention to multi-step instructions 3 pts
Impaired in: ADHD (commission errors, impulsivity), schizophrenia (omission errors, reduced d′), TBI, delirium, severe anxiety. Dual-task processing especially impaired in schizophrenia spectrum.
Motor skills encompass fine motor dexterity, speed, reaction time, and grip strength — assessable with finger tapping, pegboard tasks, and grip dynamometry. These have minimal cognitive demands and help identify lateralized dysfunction. Construction is the ability to copy or produce drawings of objects. The clock drawing task is particularly rich — it engages construction, planning (executive), and visual attention simultaneously. Construction deficits are commonly found in dementia and right parietal lesions.
- Copy cube — 3D spatial construction 1 pt
- Clock drawing (contour, numbers, hands at 10 past 11) — visuospatial construction + executive planning 3 pts
- Clock drawing (hour markers + time at 10 min to 11) — visuospatial construction 4 pts
- Place X in triangle — visual-spatial accuracy, basic praxis 1 pt
- Identify largest figure — visual discrimination 1 pt
Impaired in: Right parietal lesions (construction deficits, neglect), Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease (motor slowing), DLB, parietal strokes, normal aging (fine motor slowing).
Sensation is the detection of stimuli across the five sensory modalities. Perception involves integrating and recognizing sensory input — identifying previously experienced objects, sounds, smells, and spatial orientations. Agnosia is the inability to recognize previously identifiable stimuli despite intact primary sensation and is modality-specific. Neglect — inattention to a full hemifield — is a perceptual deficit seen after right-hemisphere stroke.
- Animal naming images (lion, rhino, camel) — involves visual perception + semantic retrieval 3 pts (overlaps Language)
- No dedicated primary sensation/perception items — assumes intact basic senses
- Shape identification and size discrimination — basic visual perception 2 pts (overlaps Attention)
- Neither screen assesses primary sensation — clinical exam or specialized testing required
Impaired in: Right parietal strokes (contralateral neglect, visuospatial agnosia), occipital lesions (visual agnosia), temporal lesions (auditory agnosia, prosopagnosia), Lewy body dementia (early visuoperceptual deficits).
📋 MoCA vs. SLUMS — Domain Coverage Comparison
Both tests assess 30 total points. Coverage of cognitive domains differs; combined use provides broader sampling. Training and certification are required to administer and interpret the MoCA.
| Cognitive Domain | MoCA Task(s) | MoCA Pts | SLUMS Task(s) | SLUMS Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Executive | Trail Making (alternating), Clock (planning), Abstraction, Serial 7s | 9 | Math word problem, Clock (planning), Story (organization) | 15* |
| Processing Speed | Verbal fluency (F words, timed) | 1 | Animal fluency (timed) | 3 |
| Language | Naming (3 animals), Sentence repetition (×2), Verbal fluency | 6 | Animal fluency | 3 |
| Memory | Forward/backward digit span, Word encoding (×2), Delayed recall, MIS, Orientation | 13 | Orientation (×3), 5-object recall, Digit span backwards, Story recall | 18 |
| Attention | Letter A vigilance, Serial 7s | 4 | Shape identification, Math problem (multi-step) | 5* |
| Motor / Construction | Copy cube, Clock drawing | 4 | Clock drawing, X in triangle, Largest figure | 6 |
| Sensation / Perception | Neither screen directly assesses primary sensation/perception — assumes intact basic senses. Perceptual items overlap with Language (naming) and Attention (shape). | |||
* Domain points overlap; individual tasks often engage multiple domains simultaneously. Point values reflect primary domain attribution.
🎯 Score Interpretation
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) — 30 Points
+1 point if ≤12 years formal education (max 30). Administration ~10 minutes. Normal ≥26/30. Training and certification required for clinical interpretation (www.mocatest.org).
MoCA sensitivity for MCI ~90%; specificity ~87% (Nasreddine et al., J Am Geriatr Soc, 2005). A score below 26 does not automatically indicate dementia; scores must be interpreted alongside clinical history, education, and medical evaluation. A score ≥26 after a dementia diagnosis does not indicate resolution.
Saint Louis University Mental Status Exam (SLUMS) — 30 Points
Validated for detection of mild neurocognitive disorder and dementia. Scoring varies by education level. No certification required. May be more sensitive than MMSE for mild impairment.
Tariq SH, et al. Am J Geriatr Psych. 2006;14:900–910. SLUMS may be more sensitive than MMSE for detecting MCI. Education-adjusted scoring is essential. Scores are one tool among many — full clinical evaluation including history, collateral information, neuroimaging, and laboratory workup is required for diagnosis.
Classic Neuropsychiatric Circuits
Parallel cortico–basal ganglia–thalamo–cortical loops and limbic circuits.
🧠 Classic Neuropsychiatric Circuits
Several circuits are repeatedly referenced in neuropsychiatry because they link brain anatomy to cognition, behavior, and psychiatric symptoms. Most originate from Alexander, DeLong & Strick's landmark 1986 description of parallel cortico–basal ganglia–thalamo–cortical loops, each specialized for a distinct functional domain.
All four loops share the same basic architecture: Cortex → Striatum → Globus Pallidus/SNr → Thalamus → Cortex. What differs is which cortical region anchors the loop and therefore which function is modulated. This framework underlies DBS target selection, neuropsychiatric differential diagnosis, and neuroimaging interpretation.
- Executive function & cognitive control
- Working memory (maintenance + manipulation)
- Planning and goal-directed behavior
- Cognitive flexibility / set-shifting
- Problem solving
- Impulse control and behavioral inhibition
- Social judgment and contextual behavior
- Reward evaluation and value-based decision making
- Emotional regulation via prefrontal modulation
- Motivation and initiation of behavior
- Effort allocation toward goals
- Emotional processing and salience detection
- Error monitoring and response conflict
- Emotional processing and subjective emotional experience
- Episodic memory encoding and consolidation
- Integration of emotional context with memory
- Spatial navigation (hippocampal component)
- Fear acquisition and extinction learning
- Threat detection and emotional salience
- Contextual modulation of fear (vmPFC)
- Conditioned fear responses
- Reward processing and hedonic response
- Motivation and incentive salience
- Reinforcement learning (prediction error signal)
- Drug-induced euphoria and craving
- Executive function and working memory (D1 receptors on PFC)
- Motivation and effort-based decision making
- Cognitive aspects of goal-directed behavior
- Modulates DLPFC and ACC loop activity
- Initiation and scaling of voluntary movement
- Selection of appropriate motor programs
- Suppression of competing/unwanted movements
- Template architecture for all parallel BG loops
⚡ Quick Clinical Heuristic — Symptom to Circuit
When a patient presents with a neuropsychiatric symptom cluster, this mapping provides a starting point for circuit-level localization. Symptoms rarely reflect a single circuit; overlap is the rule.
| Symptom / Presentation | Primary Circuit | Key Neurotransmitter | Example Conditions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Executive dysfunction, poor planning | DLPFC Circuit | Dopamine (D1, PFC) | Schizophrenia, ADHD, MDD, FTD |
| Impulsivity, disinhibition, compulsions | Orbitofrontal Circuit | Serotonin, Dopamine | OCD, Tourette, FTD, SUD |
| Apathy, amotivation, anhedonia | Anterior Cingulate Circuit | Dopamine (mesolimbic) | MDD, Parkinson, TBI |
| Anxiety, fear, hypervigilance | Amygdala–PFC Circuit | GABA, Serotonin, NE | PTSD, GAD, Panic Disorder |
| Positive psychotic symptoms (hallucinations, delusions) | Mesolimbic Circuit | Dopamine (↑D2, NAc) | Schizophrenia, mania, stimulant psychosis |
| Negative / cognitive symptoms | Mesocortical Circuit | Dopamine (↓D1, PFC) | Schizophrenia, ADHD, MDD |
| Memory impairment | Papez Circuit | ACh, Glutamate | Alzheimer, Korsakoff, TBI |
| Movement disorder (rigidity, chorea, tics) | Motor BG Circuit | Dopamine (putamen) | Parkinson, Huntington, Tourette, TD |
Brain Regions in Neuropsychiatric Disorders
Neuroanatomical correlates of major psychiatric and neurological diagnoses.
🧠 Brain Regions in Neuropsychiatric Disorders
Each major neuropsychiatric condition is associated with dysfunction in a characteristic set of brain regions. Region involvement is based on convergent evidence from structural MRI, functional neuroimaging, lesion studies, and postmortem data. Colors indicate brain region category.
Hyperactivation of the amygdala drives exaggerated fear responses and intrusive memories. The vmPFC normally suppresses amygdala activation during extinction — this inhibition is impaired in PTSD. Hippocampal volume reduction contributes to impaired contextual fear memory, resulting in generalized (context-independent) fear responses.
Unlike PTSD (cue-dependent fear), GAD involves sustained, diffuse apprehension mediated by the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) — a structure implicated in anticipatory anxiety. The insula processes interoceptive signals contributing to somatic anxiety symptoms. Prefrontal hypoactivation impairs top-down regulation of the threat network.
OCD is characterized by hyperactivation of the orbitofrontal–caudate–thalamic loop. Normally the OFC evaluates action outcomes and the caudate gates habitual behaviors — in OCD this loop becomes "stuck," generating repetitive, compulsive thoughts and behaviors. Neuroimaging consistently shows increased activity in the OFC and caudate at rest, normalizing with successful treatment (SSRIs or CBT).
Tourette syndrome involves hyperactivation of cortico-striatal sensorimotor loops, generating premonitory urges and tics. Striatal overactivity releases suppressed motor programs, producing involuntary vocalizations and movements. High comorbidity with OCD (same orbitofrontal loop) and ADHD (same frontostriatal network) reflects shared circuit overlap.
Mayberg's limbic-cortical model describes MDD as hyperactivity of the subgenual ACC (sgACC/Area 25) driving sustained negative affect, while the dorsal PFC is hypoactive (impairing cognitive regulation). Hippocampal volume loss — partially reversible with antidepressants and exercise — reflects glucocorticoid toxicity from chronic stress. Nucleus accumbens hypoactivation underlies anhedonia. The sgACC is the primary target of deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression.
Bipolar disorder is associated with amygdala hyperactivity and insufficient prefrontal regulation across mood states. The ventrolateral PFC, which normally modulates emotional responses, shows structural and functional abnormalities. Ventral striatum dysregulation drives the elevated reward sensitivity and impulsivity of manic episodes. Amygdala volume enlargement (opposite to MDD's reduction) is among the most replicated findings.
Schizophrenia involves a complex interaction between hypofrontality (↓dopamine in DLPFC → negative/cognitive symptoms) and mesolimbic hyperdopaminergia (↑dopamine in striatum → positive symptoms). The thalamus acts as a sensory gating mechanism; thalamic abnormalities may explain the flooding of consciousness with irrelevant stimuli that contributes to psychosis. Superior temporal cortex (including Wernicke's area) volume loss correlates with auditory hallucinations. Hippocampal hyperactivation disrupts pattern completion and separation, potentially driving the associative loosening and false inference seen in delusions.
ADHD is a disorder of fronto-striatal attention and executive networks. The DLPFC and ACC are hypoactive, impairing working memory, planning, and error monitoring. Reduced dopaminergic and noradrenergic tone in the PFC is the primary target of stimulant therapy. Caudate volume reduction (which normalizes with stimulant treatment) reflects delayed neural maturation rather than fixed damage. The cerebellum contributes to timing deficits and cognitive coordination.
Autism involves differences in three interconnected systems: the social brain network (STS, fusiform face area, amygdala, mPFC — involved in face recognition, social perception, and theory of mind), long-range connectivity (frequently underconnected between distant regions, overconnected locally), and cerebellar circuits (affecting timing of social responses, motor coordination, and predictive processing). Amygdala differences contribute to atypical salience assignment to social stimuli.
Alzheimer pathology (amyloid plaques and tau neurofibrillary tangles) spreads in a stereotyped pattern described by Braak staging: beginning in the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus (explaining early episodic memory loss), progressing to temporal and parietal association cortices, then frontal lobes. The posterior cingulate and precuneus — hubs of the default mode network — show early hypometabolism on FDG-PET, making them important imaging biomarkers. Cholinergic depletion from the basal forebrain (nucleus basalis of Meynert) is the pharmacological target of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors.
Parkinson disease results from progressive loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SNpc), depleting dopamine in the putamen and disrupting the motor basal ganglia circuit. Loss of the direct pathway's activation and overactivation of the indirect pathway → increased GPi inhibition of thalamus → reduced cortical motor output (bradykinesia, rigidity). Braak's staging of Parkinson pathology suggests it begins in the brainstem (locus coeruleus, dorsal vagal nucleus) before reaching the SNpc, explaining non-motor prodromal symptoms (REM sleep disorder, anosmia, constipation).
FTD involves selective degeneration of the frontal and anterior temporal lobes, with relative sparing of posterior regions (distinguishing it from Alzheimer). The behavioral variant (bvFTD) causes disinhibition, apathy, and social inappropriateness — reflecting orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate degeneration. Primary progressive aphasias (semantic dementia, PNFA) reflect asymmetric temporal or frontal language network loss. Unlike Alzheimer, episodic memory is often relatively preserved early; executive function and behavior are the first casualties.
Wernicke encephalopathy results from acute thiamine (B₁) deficiency, causing hemorrhagic necrosis in thiamine-dependent high-metabolic regions. The classic triad: ophthalmoplegia (periaqueductal gray/oculomotor nuclei), ataxia (cerebellum), and confusion/encephalopathy (thalamic and mammillary body involvement). MRI shows characteristic T2/FLAIR hyperintensity around the aqueduct and in medial thalami. Treatment must not be delayed — thiamine must precede glucose in suspected cases. Untreated, it progresses to Korsakoff syndrome.
The chronic amnestic syndrome following Wernicke encephalopathy. Bilateral mammillary body atrophy and mediodorsal thalamic lesions disrupt the Papez circuit, resulting in profound anterograde amnesia (inability to form new memories) with relatively preserved remote memory, procedural learning, and intellectual function. Confabulation — producing false memories without intent to deceive — is a characteristic feature, reflecting disinhibited memory retrieval processes. The MD thalamic nuclei serve as a relay between frontal lobes and hippocampus; their damage disrupts frontal monitoring of memory output.
Chronic alcohol exposure causes direct neurotoxicity (ethanol and acetaldehyde), thiamine deficiency, glutamate excitotoxicity during repeated withdrawals, and oxidative stress. The frontal lobes — responsible for executive function — are disproportionately vulnerable, producing disinhibition, poor planning, and impulsivity. Cerebellar degeneration causes persistent ataxia. Corpus callosum demyelination (Marchiafava-Bignami disease in severe cases) disrupts inter-hemispheric communication. Unlike Korsakoff, ARBD involves broader, more diffuse damage with potential for partial recovery with abstinence.
📈 Network → Disorder Quick Reference
| Network / Circuit | Primary Disorders | Key Brain Regions |
|---|---|---|
| Amygdala Fear Network | PTSD, GAD, Panic Disorder | Amygdala, vmPFC, hippocampus, BNST |
| Orbitofrontal Loop | OCD, Tourette, FTD (behavioral) | OFC, caudate, thalamus, ACC |
| Frontostriatal Attention Network | ADHD, Schizophrenia (cognitive), MDD | DLPFC, caudate/putamen, ACC, cerebellum |
| Subgenual / Mood Network | MDD, Bipolar Disorder | sgACC, vmPFC, amygdala, NAc |
| Reward Network (Striatum) | Bipolar (mania), Addiction, MDD (anhedonia) | NAc, VTA, OFC, ventral striatum |
| DLPFC Cognitive Network | Schizophrenia (negative/cognitive), ADHD | DLPFC, thalamus, dorsal striatum |
| Memory Network (Hippocampus) | Alzheimer, Korsakoff, PTSD | Hippocampus, entorhinal cx, mammillary bodies, thalamus |
| Social Brain Network | ASD, Social Anxiety Disorder | STS, fusiform, amygdala, mPFC |
| Nigrostriatal Motor Network | Parkinson, Huntington, Tardive Dyskinesia | SNpc, putamen, GPi, motor cortex |
📚 References
- Harvey PD. Domains of cognition and their assessment. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2019;21(3):227–237.
- Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–699.
- Tariq SH, Tumosa N, Chibnall JT, et al. The Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) examination. Am J Geriatr Psych. 2006;14:900–910.
- Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Bigler ED, Tranel D. Neuropsychological Assessment. 5th ed. Oxford University Press; 2012.
- Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-Mental State. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–198.
- Paulsen JS, Salmon DP, Monsch A, et al. Discrimination of cortical from subcortical dementias. J Clin Psychol. 1995;51:48–58.
- Twamley EW, et al. Prospective memory impairment in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2007;106:42–49.
- Alexander GE, DeLong MR, Strick PL. Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1986;9:357–381.
- Tekin S, Cummings JL. Frontal-subcortical neuronal circuits and clinical neuropsychiatry: an update. J Psychosom Res. 2002;53(2):647–654.
- Papez JW. A proposed mechanism of emotion. Arch Neurol Psychiatry. 1937;38(4):725–743.
- LeDoux JE. The emotional brain, fear, and the amygdala. Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2003;23(4–5):727–738.
- Schultz W. Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. J Neurophysiol. 1998;80(1):1–27.
- Haber SN. Corticostriatal circuitry. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2016;18(1):7–21.
- Cummings JL, Mega MS. Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience. Oxford University Press; 2003.
- Stahl SM. Stahl's Essential Psychopharmacology. 5th ed. Cambridge University Press; 2021.
Medication Comparison
Compare up to 6 medications across receptor binding, predicted side effects, and neuropsychiatric circuit targets.
⚖ Select Medications
Medication Price Comparison
Cash prices for psychiatric medications across Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs and HealthWarehouse, with NADAC (CMS wholesale acquisition cost) shown as a transparency anchor — most common form, 30-day supply.
Prices reflect cash pay (no insurance) and may vary by pharmacy, dose, supply, and zip code. Generic equivalents typically used. Always verify current pricing with the source pharmacy before counseling patients. Inclusion of a pharmacy does not imply endorsement.
Medication Taper / Start Scheduler
Generate a dose titration or tapering schedule for psychiatric medications.
💊 Single Drug Schedule
Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Staging Tool
Interactive CDR calculator with box scores, global CDR derivation per Morris (1993) scoring algorithm, CDR Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), and clinical staging interpretation.
| Domain | Score | Impairment Level |
|---|---|---|
| CDR Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) | ||
CDR-SB Staging: 0 = Normal | 0.5–4.0 = Questionable/Very Mild | 4.5–9.0 = Mild | 9.5–15.5 = Moderate | 16.0–18.0 = Severe
Note: Personal Care does not have a 0.5 score in the standard CDR. The global CDR is derived using the Washington University algorithm where Memory is the primary category. Score only as decline from previous usual level due to cognitive loss, not impairment due to other factors.
Autism Spectrum Disorder Severity Rating Tool
DSM-5 severity level assessment across both core domains (Social Communication and Restricted/Repetitive Behaviors), with clinical interpretation, support needs mapping, and screening instrument guidance.
📋 DSM-5 Diagnostic Specifiers
Check if present. These specifiers are documented alongside severity level to provide a complete diagnostic formulation.
Screening & Assessment Instruments Reference
| Instrument | Type | Age Range | Administration | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M-CHAT-R/F | Screening | 16–30 months | Parent questionnaire + follow-up | 20 items; sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.99 with follow-up; AAP-recommended universal screen |
| ADOS-2 | Diagnostic | 12 months – adult | Semi-structured observation (40–60 min) | Gold standard; 5 modules by age/language; calibrated severity scores (CSS 1–10); requires trained clinician |
| ADI-R | Diagnostic | Mental age ≥2 years | Caregiver interview (1.5–2.5 hrs) | 93 items; lifetime and current behavior; strong psychometrics; used alongside ADOS-2 |
| SRS-2 | Screening/Severity | 2.5 years – adult | Questionnaire (15–20 min) | 65 items; T-scores: ≤59 normal, 60–65 mild, 66–75 moderate, ≥76 severe; tracks treatment response |
| SCQ | Screening | ≥4 years (mental age ≥2) | Parent questionnaire (10 min) | 40 items based on ADI-R; cutoff ≥15 suggests further evaluation; Lifetime and Current forms |
| CARS-2 | Diagnostic/Severity | ≥2 years | Clinician rating (5–10 min) | 15 items; Standard (ST) and High-Functioning (HF) versions; scores: <30 non-ASD, 30–36.5 mild-moderate, ≥37 severe |
| ASRS | Screening | 2–18 years | Parent/teacher (15 min) | 70 items; DSM-5 aligned; T-score ≥60 elevated; peer-comparison and DSM-scale scores |
| RAADS-R | Screening (adults) | ≥18 years | Self-report + clinician (30 min) | 80 items; cutoff ≥65; designed for adults who may have been missed in childhood; sensitivity 0.97 |
| CAT-Q | Camouflaging measure | ≥16 years | Self-report (10 min) | 25 items; measures compensation, masking, assimilation; useful for identifying underdiagnosed females |
Pharmacotherapy Reference by Target Symptom
| Target Symptom | First-Line | Alternatives | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irritability / Aggression | Risperidone (age ≥5), Aripiprazole (age ≥6) | N-acetylcysteine (adjunct) | Only FDA-approved medications for ASD-associated irritability; monitor metabolic parameters |
| Hyperactivity / Inattention | Methylphenidate (low dose) | Guanfacine ER, Atomoxetine | Lower response rate than in ADHD alone (~50% vs 75%); higher side-effect sensitivity; start low, go slow |
| Anxiety / Repetitive behaviors | SSRIs (fluoxetine, sertraline) | Buspirone | Limited RCT evidence in ASD; clinical experience supports use; watch for activation/agitation |
| Sleep disturbance | Melatonin (1–5 mg) | Trazodone, Clonidine | Melatonin has strongest evidence base in ASD; address sleep hygiene first |
| Self-injurious behavior | Risperidone, Aripiprazole | Naltrexone, Clonidine | Behavioral intervention is first-line; medication as adjunct for severe/refractory cases |
Note: Severity levels are rated independently for each domain and reflect current support needs, not inherent capacity. Levels may differ across the two domains and may change over time. Co-occurring intellectual disability, language impairment, and other conditions should be specified separately. The tool generates a clinical summary—it does not replace comprehensive evaluation.
Suicide Risk Assessment Tools
Clinical screening instruments for suicide ideation, behavior, and risk stratification. Three validated assessment approaches: C-SSRS Screen (rapid screening), C-SSRS Full Risk Assessment (comprehensive), and Risk/Protective Factors Framework (AFSP).
Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: Screen Version
Rapid assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior. Answers help determine risk level and need for further evaluation.
Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: Full Risk Assessment
Comprehensive multi-section assessment of suicidal ideation, behavior, and intensity. Click sections to expand.
Risk Factors, Protective Factors & Warning Signs
Comprehensive framework for suicide risk assessment based on AFSP guidelines. Identify and monitor risk profile across three domains.
Posner K, Brown GK, Stanley B, et al. The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: Initial Validity and Internal Consistency Findings from Three Multisite Studies with Adolescents and Adults. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011;72(2):233-239.
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP). Risk factors, protective factors, and warning signs. Accessed 2026.
SLUMS Examination
Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination — 30-point cognitive screening tool for detecting mild neurocognitive disorder and dementia, with domain-specific impairment analysis.
Patient Information
Encoding phase — scored in Q7 (Delayed Recall)
Jill was a very successful stockbroker. She made a lot of money on the stock market. She then met Jack, a devastatingly handsome man. She married him and had three children. They lived in Chicago. She then stopped work and stayed at home to bring up her children. When they were teenagers, she went back to work. She and Jack lived happily ever after.
Cognitive Domain Analysis
Clinical Significance: Orientation requires intact episodic and semantic memory circuits. Temporal disorientation often precedes spatial disorientation in Alzheimer's disease.
Clinical Significance: Scored on Q5 calculation (multi-step reasoning). Clock drawing (Q9, scored under Visuospatial) and story recall (Q11, scored under Memory) also engage executive function. Classical frontal-subcortical circuit involvement.
Clinical Significance: Sustained attention required for multi-step math problems; selective visual attention for shape identification. Impaired early in delirium and ADHD.
Clinical Significance: Delayed recall (Q7) and narrative memory (Q11) together comprise 13/30 points—the largest domain weight. Disproportionate memory loss relative to other domains suggests Alzheimer's-pattern impairment. Encoding failure (poor registration) vs. retrieval failure (poor recall with preserved recognition) helps distinguish cortical vs. subcortical dementia.
Clinical Significance: Digit span backwards requires active manipulation of held information. Impaired in frontostriatal conditions, schizophrenia, and delirium.
Clinical Significance: Animal fluency is a timed semantic retrieval task that taxes both language networks and processing speed. Reduced output may reflect frontal-subcortical dysfunction (clustering/switching deficit) or temporal lobe pathology (semantic store depletion).
Clinical Significance: Scored on Q9 clock drawing (visuospatial construction + executive planning). Shape tasks (Q10) scored under Attention. Disproportionate visuospatial impairment suggests right parietal pathology or Lewy body dementia.
Question-by-Question Results
PANSS (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale)
Standardized clinical assessment for schizophrenia and psychosis symptom severity. Two validated approaches: PANSS-6 (brief 6-item screening) and PANSS-30 (full 30-item assessment with Positive, Negative, and General Psychopathology subscales plus Marder factor analysis).
Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS)
Standardized bedside assessment for catatonia. Two approaches: 14-item Catatonia Screening Instrument (CSI) for rapid detection, and full 23-item severity rating scale (CRS) with subtype classification and malignant catatonia screening.
Catatonia Screening Index (CSI)
Screen for presence of catatonia using 14 core items. Score: 2 or more items present = positive screen.
Full Rating Scale (CRS)
Complete assessment of 23 items. Severity scale 0–69. Items 12, 17–21 are binary (0 or 3).
CIDI 3.0 Bipolar Screening Scale
The CIDI 3.0 Bipolar Screening Scale is a brief, validated screening tool for bipolar disorder in primary care and general clinical settings. It uses stem questions about mood elevation and irritability, followed by a gate question and symptom assessment to estimate the probability of bipolar disorder. Not a diagnostic instrument—results should inform further clinical evaluation.
PCL-5 (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5)
A 20-item self-report measure assessing PTSD symptoms according to DSM-5 criteria. Items are rated 0-4 based on distress in the past month. Total scores range from 0-80, with scores ≥33 suggesting possible PTSD diagnosis.
Cluster B — IntrusionItems 1–5
+Cluster C — AvoidanceItems 6–7
+Cluster D — Negative Cognitions/MoodItems 8–14
+Cluster E — Arousal/ReactivityItems 15–20
+YMRS (Young Mania Rating Scale)
The Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) is an 11-item clinician-administered scale for assessing the severity of manic symptoms in adults. Total score ranges from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater manic severity. Useful for baseline assessment and monitoring treatment response in bipolar I and bipolar II disorders.
Y-BOCS (Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale)
Comprehensive assessment of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and severity. The Y-BOCS includes a symptom checklist to identify current and past obsessions and compulsions, plus a 10-item severity scale (items 1–10) that measures time occupied, interference, distress, resistance, and control. Supplemental items (1b, 6b) and investigational items (11–19) provide additional clinical context but are not included in the total score.
Check each symptom that the patient has experienced. Mark Current if present in the past week; mark Past if experienced previously but not currently.
Compulsions
Rate each item on the 0–4 scale using the anchor descriptions provided. Select one response per item. The total score (Items 1–10) ranges from 0 to 40.
Obsessions (Items 1–5)
Compulsions (Items 6–10)
AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale)
Standardized assessment tool for detecting and monitoring tardive dyskinesia and other abnormal involuntary movements. A positive screen (score ≥2 on any item 1–7 or ≥2 on item 8) suggests need for further evaluation. Administer the complete examination procedure for accurate assessment.
- Ask patient to remove anything from mouth (gum, dentures, etc.)
- Ask about current condition of teeth and/or dentures
- Ask if patient notices any movements in mouth, face, hands, or feet
- Patient sits with hands on knees, legs slightly apart, feet flat on floor
- Patient sits with hands hanging unsupported; observe for 30 seconds
- Ask patient to open mouth (observe tongue at rest); repeat 2 times
- Ask patient to protrude tongue (observe for abnormalities); repeat 2 times
- Ask patient to tap thumb with each finger as rapidly as possible for 10–15 seconds on each hand (activated)
- Examiner flexes and extends patient's left and right arms (one at a time)
- Ask patient to stand (observe from all angles, including profile)
- Ask patient to extend both arms out in front with palms down for 20 seconds (activated)
- Have patient walk a few paces, turn, and walk back (activated)
ADL / IADL Functional Assessment
Evaluate activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) to assess functional independence and care needs.
| Activity | Independent | Needs Help | Dependent | Cannot Do |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bathing | ||||
| Dressing | ||||
| Grooming | ||||
| Mouth Care | ||||
| Toileting | ||||
| Transferring (Bed/Chair) | ||||
| Walking | ||||
| Climbing Stairs | ||||
| Eating |
| Activity | Independent | Needs Help | Dependent | Cannot Do |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shopping | ||||
| Cooking | ||||
| Managing Medications | ||||
| Using Phone / Looking Up Numbers | ||||
| Doing Housework | ||||
| Doing Laundry | ||||
| Driving / Using Public Transportation | ||||
| Managing Finances* |
Aid to Capacity Evaluation (ACE)
Structured 7-domain assessment of decision-specific capacity for a medical decision (Etchells et al., Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto). Yields an EMR-ready note and a printable blank form.
1. Patient & Decision Context
Briefly identify the decision being assessed. Use the patient’s own words wherever possible.
2. Domain Scoring
Domains 1–6: YES = appropriate response to open-ended questions; UNSURE = needs prompting with closed-ended questions; NO = cannot respond appropriately despite repeated prompting.
Domain 7 (a/b): YES means the decision is affected by depression/psychosis. Never base a finding of incapacity on domain 7 alone.
3. Overall Impression
Capacity is presumed; if uncertain, err on the side of calling the person capable.
EMR-Ready Summary
McLean Screening Instrument for BPD (MSI-BPD)
10-item self-report screening tool for Borderline Personality Disorder. A score of 7 or higher warrants further diagnostic evaluation.
DSM-5-TR Substance Use Disorder Tool
Select a substance; the 11 DSM-5-TR criteria populate with substance-specific examples. Generates an EMR-ready text summary on completion.
1. Substance
2. DSM-5-TR Criteria (past 12 months)
A problematic pattern of use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by 2 or more of the following within a 12-month period.
3. Remission & Additional Specifiers
4. Supporting notes (optional, appended to output)
EMR-Ready Summary
CIWA-Ar (Alcohol Withdrawal Assessment)
The Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol, Revised (CIWA-Ar) is a 10-item, clinician-rated tool for assessing severity of acute alcohol withdrawal. Total score ranges from 0 to 67. Higher scores indicate more severe withdrawal and greater risk for seizures and delirium tremens. Commonly used to guide symptom-triggered benzodiazepine dosing protocols.
COWS (Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale)
The Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) is an 11-item clinician-administered instrument that reproducibly rates common signs and symptoms of opiate withdrawal. It is used to quantify withdrawal severity, monitor trajectory, and guide the timing of buprenorphine induction. Total score ranges approximately 0–48; severity bands: 5–12 mild, 13–24 moderate, 25–36 moderately severe, >36 severe.
Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS v1.1)
18-item screening tool for adult ADHD. Part A (6 items) is the primary screener; Part B (12 items) provides supplemental diagnostic information.
Shaded cells indicate responses in the clinical range. For Q1-3, "Sometimes" or higher is clinical. For Q4-6, "Often" or higher is clinical.
Additional items to support diagnostic assessment. Scoring is frequency distribution only (no clinical threshold).
Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)
Assess daytime sleepiness across 8 common situations. A simple screening tool to identify excessive daytime somnolence.
Instructions: Rate each situation for your likelihood of dozing off or falling asleep, not just feeling tired. Even if you haven't done some recently, estimate how they would affect you.
| Situation | Would never nod off (0) | Slight chance (1) | Moderate chance (2) | High chance (3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sitting and reading | ||||
| 2. Watching TV | ||||
| 3. Sitting, inactive, in a public place (e.g., meeting, theater, dinner event) | ||||
| 4. As a passenger in a car for an hour or more without a break | ||||
| 5. Lying down to rest when circumstances permit | ||||
| 6. Sitting and talking to someone | ||||
| 7. Sitting quietly after a meal without alcohol | ||||
| 8. In a car, while stopped for a few minutes in traffic or at a light |
Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT)
The Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT) is a validated 23-item (work-related) or 22-item (general) self-report measure of burnout across four core dimensions: exhaustion, mental distance, cognitive impairment, and emotional impairment. An additional 10-item secondary symptoms scale covers psychological and psychosomatic complaints. Developed by Schaufeli, De Witte & Desart (2019) at KU Leuven. Scored 1–5 (Never to Always); domain mean scores are reported.
Autism Screening (AQ)
The Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) is a self-report screening instrument developed by Baron-Cohen et al. (2001) at the Autism Research Centre, University of Cambridge. The AQ-10 is a brief 10-item screener for rapid identification of adults who may benefit from a full autism evaluation. The AQ-50 provides a comprehensive 50-item assessment across five domains: social skills, attention switching, attention to detail, communication, and imagination. Items are scored 0 or 1 based on endorsement direction; higher scores indicate greater autistic traits.
Reference: Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17.
Question Bank
1,000 USMLE-style psychiatry questions across 62+ topics. Sign in to start a quiz.
Printable Clinical Forms
Download and print blank rating scales for bedside or clinic use.
Four-quadrant H&P: CC/HPI/ROS, background (psychosocial, SUD, allergies, PMH/PSH, FH, PPH), MSE/vitals/labs, and diagnosis/assessment/plan.
Subjective (mood/anxiety/sleep/SI/HI/adherence/side effects), Objective (vitals + key MSE + scales), Assessment (course + risk), Plan (meds, therapy, labs, follow-up).
Checklist for QT-prolonging drug risk stratification in acute care settings.
Clinician-administered staging scale for dementia severity across 6 cognitive domains.
10-item screening for autism spectrum traits. Cutoff ≥6 suggests referral for evaluation.
18-item self-report ADHD screening with Part A (6 items) and Part B (12 supplemental).
Structured 7-domain assessment of decision-specific capacity for a medical decision (understanding, appreciation, and affective influences).
Structured bipolar disorder screening with stem questions and 9 Criterion B symptoms.
Clinician-rated 11-item scale for assessing manic symptom severity (0-60).
20-item PTSD symptom checklist across 4 DSM-5 clusters. Cutoff ≥33 suggests PTSD.
Clinician-rated 10-item scale for obsessive-compulsive symptom severity (0-40).
10-item self-report screening for borderline personality disorder. Cutoff ≥7 positive.
6-item abbreviated PANSS with positive, negative, and composite subscales (0-42).
Comprehensive 30-item scale with positive, negative, and general psychopathology subscales.
CSI (14 items) + CRS (23 items) for catatonia screening and severity assessment.
10-item scale assessing abnormal involuntary movements from antipsychotic exposure (0-28).
8-item self-report of daytime sleepiness across common situations (0-24).
C-SSRS screening + risk/protective factors for comprehensive suicide risk assessment.
Complete Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale — 5 sections: risk/protective factors, ideation (5 levels), intensity, behavior, and lethality.
23-item Burnout Assessment Tool measuring work-related burnout across 6 domains (1-5 scale).
22-item Burnout Assessment Tool for general (non-work) burnout across 6 domains (1-5 scale).
Chapters
86 evidence-based clinical articles on psychopharmacology, psychiatric disorders, clinical practice, and more.
Browse all articles with search, filtering, and category organization on the full blog page.
Browse All 86 Articles →This article has moved to its own page.
Read: Smoking Cessation →This article has moved to its own page.
Read: Obesity & Weight Loss →Contact
Questions, feedback, or suggestions? Send a message below.
Your email is used only to respond to your message and is never shared or stored beyond what is necessary for correspondence. No attachments are accepted.