US dataswitch to UK
Dermatologists
conducting complete skin examinations, recording patients' health histories and recommending diagnostic tests based on patients' histories and physical examination findings. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: conducting complete skin examinations is work software can't reach.
What shifts is reading current literature: the paper around the work, not the work.
Your week, as this page understands it
Diagnose and treat diseases relating to the skin, hair, and nails. May perform both medical and dermatological surgery functions. The job title says “dermatologists”. The real job is the part underneath: conducting complete skin examinations. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But dermatologists is not one task. It is 18 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is conducting complete skin examinations, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 0%
- changing shape
- 25%
- staying human
- 75%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 24 out of 100 (19–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 18 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for dermatologists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- 3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
0 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.
Changing shape
4 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Recording patients' health histories
The software now makes the first pass at patients' health histories, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Record patients' health histories.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (38–46 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Note-taking software already turns a consultation into a written history that the doctor checks and signs.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recommending diagnostic tests based on patients' histories and physical examination findings
The software now makes the first pass at diagnostic tests, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Recommend diagnostic tests based on patients' histories and physical examination findings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (44–52 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Choosing which tests fit a patient’s history follows documented guidelines, though a qualified doctor makes the call.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reading current literature
The software now makes the first pass at current literature, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Read current literature, talk with colleagues, and participate in professional organizations or conferences to keep abreast of developments in dermatology.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (49–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading and summarizing new research is exactly the kind of work software handles quickly and well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Referring patients to other specialists
The software now makes the first pass at patients, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Refer patients to other specialists, as needed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Matching a patient to the right specialist follows clear rules, though the referral comes from a qualified doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
14 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Conducting complete skin examinations
This work happens in the physical world: complete skin examinations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Conduct complete skin examinations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: A full skin check means looking closely at and touching a real patient.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Diagnosing and treating pigmented lesions
This work happens in the physical world: pigmented lesions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Diagnose and treat pigmented lesions such as common acquired nevi, congenital nevi, dysplastic nevi, Spitz nevi, blue nevi, or melanoma.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software reads skin images well, but removing or treating a suspicious mole is a licensed doctor’s hands-on job.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing skin surgery to improve appearance
This work happens in the physical world: skin surgery, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Perform skin surgery to improve appearance, make early diagnoses, or control diseases such as skin cancer.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Skin surgery is carried out on a patient with instruments, in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing incisional biopsies to diagnose melanoma
This work happens in the physical world: incisional biopsies, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Perform incisional biopsies to diagnose melanoma.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Cutting a sample from a patient’s skin is surgery performed by hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Counseling patients on topics, the need for annual dermatologic screenings, sun protection
The value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Counsel patients on topics such as the need for annual dermatologic screenings, sun protection, skin cancer awareness, or skin and lymph node self-examinations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (34–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advice on sun protection and self-checks is well documented and easy to draft, though patients value hearing it from their doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Diagnosing and treating skin conditions
This work happens in the physical world: skin conditions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Diagnose and treat skin conditions such as acne, dandruff, athlete's foot, moles, psoriasis, or skin cancer.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Recognizing common skin conditions suits software well, but prescribing and carrying out treatment stays with the licensed doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 8 tasks
Conducting or ordering diagnostic tests
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for diagnostic tests, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Conduct or order diagnostic tests such as chest radiographs (x-rays), microbiologic tests, or endocrinologic tests.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Deciding which tests to order is documented and routine; the order itself must come from a licensed doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting clinical or basic research
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put clinical well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Conduct clinical or basic research.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software helps write up and analyze studies, but designing and running the research stays with the clinician.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Prescribing hormonal agents or topical treatments
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for hormonal agents, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Prescribe hormonal agents or topical treatments such as contraceptives, spironolactone, antiandrogens, oral corticosteroids, retinoids, benzoyl peroxide, or antibiotics.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Standard skin treatments follow well-published prescribing rules, but only a registered prescriber can issue them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing dermatologic consultation to other health professionals
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for dermatologic consultation, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide dermatologic consultation to other health professionals.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Giving another doctor a specialist opinion needs professional judgment and a colleague’s confidence in who gave it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating patients to determine eligibility for cosmetic procedures
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Evaluate patients to determine eligibility for cosmetic procedures such as liposuction, laser resurfacing, or microdermabrasion.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Judging whether someone suits a cosmetic procedure needs an in-person look and a professional’s sign-off.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Instructing interns or residents in diagnosis and treatment of dermatological diseases
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: interns, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Instruct interns or residents in diagnosis and treatment of dermatological diseases.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching material is abundant and easy to produce, but trainees learn dermatology looking at real skin alongside a consultant.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing therapies, intralesional steroids, chemical peels or comodo removal to treat age spots, sun damage, rough skin, discolored skin or oily skin
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: therapies, intralesional steroids, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide therapies such as intralesional steroids, chemical peels, or comodo removal to treat age spots, sun damage, rough skin, discolored skin, or oily skin.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Injecting steroids or applying a chemical peel is done to a patient with instruments.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing dermabrasion or laser abrasion to treat atrophic scars
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: dermabrasion, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Provide dermabrasion or laser abrasion to treat atrophic scars, elevated scars, or other skin conditions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Resurfacing skin with abrasion or laser is a physical treatment delivered directly to the patient.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $328,730a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 11,370in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: current literature in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: reading current literature and recording patients' health histories. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where complete skin examinations get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Start with what does not change: conducting complete skin examinations is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 0% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 25% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 75% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 18 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Reading current literature is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.
This week: one thing
Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to current literature, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.
- What you end up holding
- a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
- How long it takes
- ten minutes
If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether complete skin examinations are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.
Over the next 90 days
Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near recording patients' health histories. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.
Over the next 12 months
On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to dermatologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was skincare specialists: only about 10% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 86.2% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 24/100 here, with only 0% of the task list in the top band, and “conduct complete skin examinations” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Skincare Specialists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already perform skin surgery to improve appearance, make early diagnoses, or control diseases, and their equivalent is to treat the facial skin to maintain and improve its appearance, using specialized techniques…. Across both published task lists that is about 10% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 10% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $45,330 against your $328,730, 86.2% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Chiropractors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already record patients' health histories, and their equivalent is to diagnose health problems by reviewing patients' health and medical histories, questioning, observing, and…. Across both published task lists that is about 9% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $79,200 against your $328,730, 75.9% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Healthcare Diagnosing or Treating Practitioners, All Other
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already recommend diagnostic tests based on patients' histories and physical examination findings, and their equivalent is to conduct physical examinations and physiological function tests for diagnostic purposes. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $115,210 against your $328,730, 65.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 0% of its task weight, across 18 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like conducting complete skin examinations arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Specialist medical practitioners and consultants is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Specialist medical practitioners and consultants and Generalist medical practitioners. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
Why there is no community here
Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for dermatologists launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Dermatologists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 18 official task statements scored for Dermatologists (United States, SOC 29-1213), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 24 out of 100 (range 19–29, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Dermatologists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Read current literature, talk with colleagues, and participate in professional organizations or conferences to keep abreast of developments in dermatology” (53/100, partial); “Refer patients to other specialists, as needed” (48/100, partial); “Recommend diagnostic tests based on patients' histories and physical examination findings” (48/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Dermatologists” stay human?
- About 75% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Conduct complete skin examinations” (0/100, minimal); “Perform incisional biopsies to diagnose melanoma” (0/100, minimal); “Perform skin surgery to improve appearance, make early diagnoses, or control diseases such as skin cancer” (0/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Dermatologists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 75% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Dermatologists calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 18 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 3 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.