← Risk register SOC 29-1224 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Radiologists

26,770 US workers · median $420,860/yr · Healthcare

EXPOSED

Image interpretation is the single most attacked task in medicine by AI, and detection models already match or beat human sensitivity on narrow tasks like lung nodules, fractures, and mammographic screening — but the modal radiologist also compares priors across years, resolves ambiguous findings against clinical history, dictates actionable reports, fields curbside consults from surgeons and oncologists, and performs image-guided procedures. What holds is the signature: a licensed, board-certified human owns the report and the malpractice exposure, and no vendor currently accepts autonomous diagnostic liability. Expect volume per radiologist to rise sharply while the interpretive commodity tier compresses.

10-year outlook: By 2035 radiologists read far more studies each with AI pre-reads doing first pass, and hiring growth slows while procedural and subspecialty consultative work becomes the durable core of the job.

Score — 56/100 resistance

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 8 + 8 + 18 + 7 + 15 = 56.

Task resistance 8/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier. An 8 reflects that the highest-volume portion of the workday — screening mammography reads, chest CT nodule detection, plain-film fracture triage, bone-age and cardiothoracic ratio measurement — is exactly where FDA-cleared CAD and triage algorithms already operate at scale, but it stays above the 6 line because worklists still contain multi-phase abdominal CTs where the finding only makes sense against three years of priors and a surgical note, plus fluoroscopy, biopsies, drain placements and tumour boards that no model touches.

Embodiment 8/20

Some physical or field component. Most of the day is a dark reading room and a PACS workstation, which anchors this low, but the 8 accounts for the interventional and procedural share of a general radiologist's practice — CT- and ultrasound-guided core biopsies, thoracentesis, paracentesis, lumbar punctures, fluoroscopic barium studies, arthrograms — performed on a live patient in a controlled suite rather than the field.

Liability shield 18/20

Licensed human required and personally liable. An 18 is earned by state medical licensure plus ABR board certification, hospital credentialing and privileging per procedure, and the fact that the dictated report carries the radiologist's electronic signature and is the discoverable document in missed-cancer litigation — the discount from 20 is that most reads are one node in a care chain where the ordering clinician and referring physician also carry duty, so radiology malpractice exposure is real but rarely sole.

Trust premium 7/20

Some relationship component. Patients typically never learn the radiologist's name and reads are routinely batched, load-balanced overnight, or sent to teleradiology, which caps this well under 13; the 7 comes from the referrer relationship rather than the patient one — orthopaedists and oncologists develop preferences for specific readers and phone them directly, and that repeat curbside traffic is not interchangeable.

Judgment & accountability 15/20

Exists to be accountable for ambiguous calls. A 15 fits calls where the imaging is genuinely equivocal and the recommendation has consequences: BI-RADS 3 versus 4 on an indeterminate mass, whether a subtle hyperdensity on a stroke code is haemorrhage or artefact within the thrombolysis window, calling an unexpected pulmonary embolism at 3am and escalating it, or recommending against biopsy on a lesion the surgeon wants sampled — ACR appropriateness criteria and structured reporting templates constrain the wording but not the decision.

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

Tasks already automatable

What survives

Active moats: licensure, liability, judgment

How to future-proof this job

Training paths for your skill gaps: Programming fundamentals partner link

Escape hatches — adjacent fields with better verdicts

Computed from U.S. Dept. of Labor O*NET skill profiles: high overlap with what you already do, materially higher resistance score.

Ophthalmologists, Except Pediatric SAFE · 83/100 · you already have ~86% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Persuasion, Coordination, Programming, Technology Design

Anesthesiologists SAFE · 89/100 · you already have ~84% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Operations Analysis, Management of Financial Resources, Operations Monitoring

Physician Assistants SAFE · 77/100 · you already have ~81% of the skill profile

Who is actually doing this

The score above is about what the work exposes. This is reporting about real deployments in this occupation — the difference between "could be automated" and "somebody automated it."

NYC Health + Hospitals

Field report — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work?

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

From people who do this job

Nobody has filed one yet. If you do this work, you know things the rubric can't see.

What has actually changed in your work?

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.