← Risk register SOC 29-1221 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Pediatricians, General

39,390 US workers · median $210,040/yr · Healthcare

SAFE

A general pediatrician's day is hands-on physical exams of squirming infants, otoscope and auscultation findings, immunizations, growth and development assessment, and talking anxious parents through fevers, feeding, behavior, and vaccine hesitancy. AI already drafts notes, flags dosing errors, and can produce a solid differential from a symptom list, which compresses documentation and some triage — but the diagnostic exam, the prescription signature, and the parent's trust in a specific doctor are not transferable to software. Note that state licensure and personal malpractice liability are the hard legal floor here, and that floor is regulatory rather than technical.

10-year outlook: Documentation and routine triage load shrinks substantially over ten years, letting pediatricians see more patients per hour rather than fewer pediatricians being needed; demand pressure comes from pediatric payer economics and birth rates, not from AI.

US employment, 2019–2025+32.4%
29,74039,390 workers

Dipped in 2020, then grew past where it started.

Median pay $175,310 → $210,040 -4.2% in real terms (nominal +19.8%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+0.8%

Percentage only. The projection counts a different population from the 39,390 above — it includes self-employed workers, which for this occupation is most of them, so the two headcounts are not comparable.

Hard to automate, and growing

The work resists current AI and the BLS projects +0.8% more of these jobs by 2034. Note that safe does not mean well paid — several of the fastest-growing resistant occupations are among the lowest paid on the register.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~1,200 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 22 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

DoctorPhysicianPediatristBaby DoctorPediatricianNeonatologistNeonatal DoctorMedical Doctor (MD)Pediatric PhysicianGeneral PediatricianPediatric HospitalistOutpatient PediatricianPrimary Care PediatricianDevelopmental PediatricianGroup Practice PediatricianMedical Pediatric PhysicianInternal Medicine PediatricianPediatric Hospitalist PhysicianDevelopmental-Behavioral PediatricianPediatric Emergency Medicine PhysicianEmergency Room Pediatrician (ER Pediatrician)DO Physician (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine Physician)

Score — 85/100 resistance

Holding it up: liability shield (19/20). Weakest point: task resistance (14/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 14 + 16 + 19 + 19 + 17 = 85. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 14/20

Tasks largely resist digitisation Charting, dosing checks, and well-visit anticipatory-guidance handouts are already largely templated or AI-drafted, which is why this sits at 14 rather than 18 — but eliciting a history from a nonverbal toddler, distinguishing a benign flow murmur from a pathological one by ear, and judging whether a lethargic 6-week-old needs a lumbar puncture tonight have no software substitute.

Embodiment 16/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments Every encounter requires laying hands on a patient who cannot hold still or cooperate — otoscopy on a screaming 18-month-old, palpating an abdomen, checking hip abduction for dysplasia, drawing blood from tiny veins — in exam rooms, newborn nurseries, and sometimes delivery-room resuscitations; it stops short of 19 because the setting is a controlled clinic rather than a roadside or a rooftop.

Liability shield 19/20

Licensed human required and personally liable You hold a state medical licence and DEA registration, you personally sign every immunization order and amoxicillin prescription, you are the named defendant when a missed diagnosis becomes a claim, and pediatric malpractice carries the longest statutes of limitation in medicine because the clock often does not start until the child turns 18.

Trust premium 19/20

The human relationship is the product Parents choose a specific pediatrician for their newborn and stay for eighteen years of visits — the continuity is what makes a vaccine-hesitant mother accept the MMR, what makes a teenager disclose depression or drug use with the parent out of the room, and what makes a 2 a.m. call worth taking; it is 19 rather than 20 only because urgent-care and nurse-line encounters absorb some volume without any relationship at all.

Judgment & accountability 17/20

Exists to be accountable for ambiguous calls Fever in an infant under 90 days, when to suspect non-accidental trauma and file the mandated child-abuse report, whether to treat a possible ADHD presentation with stimulants or wait, whether failure to thrive is caloric or genetic — these are decisions made on incomplete information with a caregiver as the only historian, and AAP guidelines narrow but do not decide them.

Confidence: high · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, licensure, liability, trust, judgment

How to future-proof this job

Where to go deeper on what this job runs on: Toastmasters — public speaking practice at local clubs worldwide low · Coursera — critical thinking and logic, audit free free to audit · Coursera — decision making under uncertainty free to audit · Khan Academy — reading and vocabulary, all levels, free free · Coursera — active listening and communication skills free to audit · Purdue OWL — the standard reference for professional writing free

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 91/100, still SAFE.

4 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening liability shield +1

    State medical boards or legislatures explicitly extending the physician-signature requirement to AI-generated pediatric outputs — e.g. rules on the model of California AB 3030 (2024, requiring disclosure and physician review of GenAI clinical communications) and Texas HB 1265-style provisions, plus AAP guidance that a licensed pediatrician must personally review and attest to any AI-suggested dosing, immunization schedule deviation, or developmental screening result. Also: malpractice carriers writing policy exclusions for undocumented physician review of AI recommendations.

  • plausible judgment accountability +2

    Task-mix shift: as AI absorbs well-child documentation, growth-curve plotting and routine dosing, the residual role concentrates on the genuinely ambiguous tier — the febrile neonate, suspected non-accidental trauma and mandated-reporter calls, failure-to-thrive workups, custody and consent disputes, and vaccine-hesitant counseling. Watch for CPT/E&M billing shifts toward high-complexity visits and for state child-abuse reporting statutes continuing to name a licensed physician as the accountable reporter.

  • plausible task resistance +2

    Same two-tier shift, on the capability side: if payers move pediatrics toward capitated/value-based arrangements (CMS Making Care Primary, state pediatric ACOs) where the pediatrician's paid work is complex-care coordination for medically fragile children and behavioral/mental-health management rather than volume of routine visits, the remaining task set is disproportionately the part software cannot deliver.

  • plausible trust premium +1

    Little room upward — parental preference for a named pediatrician is already near-saturated at 19. The only realistic increment is countervailing: direct primary care and concierge pediatric memberships making the human-continuity premium explicitly priced rather than implicit.

The limit. At 85/100 with liability and trust both at 19, there is almost no headroom; the meaningful question for this occupation is not whether the score rises but whether headcount and visit volume shrink while the score stays high. A high register score does not protect against fewer pediatricians each carrying a larger, more acute panel.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 93 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 4,510 $216,040 +3%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 3,080 $176,900 -16%
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH 1,860 $221,170 +5%
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ 1,080 $233,950 +11%
Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX 1,040 $124,190 -41%
Indianapolis-Carmel-Greenwood, IN 920 $170,020 -19%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 870 $226,440 +8%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 860 $188,340 -10%

Best paid

Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA 100 $395,040 +88%
York-Hanover, PA 40 $344,960 +64%
St. Cloud, MN 60 $298,830 +42%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $210,040. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 85. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.