US dataswitch to UK
Medical Dosimetrists
designing the arrangement of radiation fields to reduce exposure to critical patient structures, supervising or performing simulations for tumor localizations and creating and transferring reference images and localization markers for treatment delivery. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: calculating the delivery of radiation treatment. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, supervising or performing simulations for tumor localizations, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.
Your week, as this page understands it
Generate radiation treatment plans, develop radiation dose calculations, communicate and supervise the treatment plan implementation, and consult with members of radiation oncology team. The job title says “medical dosimetrists”. The real job is the part underneath: supervising or performing simulations for tumor localizations. 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 medical dosimetrists is not one task. It is 19 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is supervising or performing simulations for tumor localizations, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 19%
- changing shape
- 35%
- staying human
- 46%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 42 out of 100 (37–48 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 19 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 medical dosimetrists 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.
- 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
3 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.
Calculating the delivery of radiation treatment
This is reading one thing and writing another: the delivery of radiation treatment in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Calculate the delivery of radiation treatment, such as the amount or extent of radiation per session, based on the prescribed course of radiation therapy.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 allowing for uncertainty): high 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: Working out how much radiation to give each session is a calculation the planning software performs.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Calculating or verifying calculations
This is reading one thing and writing another: calculations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Calculate, or verify calculations of, prescribed radiation doses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 69 out of 100 (65–73 allowing for uncertainty): high 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: Dose calculations and their checks are arithmetic done by planning systems, with a qualified person confirming.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recording patient information, such as radiation doses administered, in patient records
This is reading one thing and writing another: patient information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Record patient information, such as radiation doses administered, in patient records.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high 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: Recording doses given in the patient record is routine data entry the treatment system can capture.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Changing shape
6 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.
Designing the arrangement of radiation fields to reduce exposure to critical patient structures
The software now makes the first pass at the arrangement of radiation fields, 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: “Design the arrangement of radiation fields to reduce exposure to critical patient structures, such as organs, using computers, manuals, and guides.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 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: Planning software already shapes radiation fields around organs well, but a qualified team member must check every plan before use.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying and outlining bodily structures
The software now makes the first pass at structures, 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: “Identify and outline bodily structures, using imaging procedures, such as x-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, or positron emission tomography.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 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: Automatic outlining of organs on scans is now good enough that the work is mainly checking and correcting it.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning the use of beam modifying devices
The software now makes the first pass at the use of beam modifying devices, 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: “Plan the use of beam modifying devices, such as compensators, shields, and wedge filters, to ensure safe and effective delivery of radiation treatment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 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: Choosing shields and wedges is a computed planning step, though a credentialed person signs it off before treatment.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Creating and transferring reference images and localization markers for treatment delivery
The software now makes the first pass at reference images, 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: “Create and transfer reference images and localization markers for treatment delivery, using image-guided radiation therapy.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 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: Producing and sending reference images and markers is a software step, checked by a qualified person before treatment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
10 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.
Developing radiation treatment plans in consultation with members of the radiation oncology team
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for radiation treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Develop radiation treatment plans in consultation with members of the radiation oncology team.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The plan itself is computed, but agreeing it with the oncologist and physicist is a working conversation.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Supervising or performing simulations for tumor localizations
This work happens in the physical world: simulations, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Supervise or perform simulations for tumor localizations, using imaging methods such as magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, or positron emission tomography scans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 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: Simulation means positioning a real patient in a scanner, with the planning work built around that session.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising oncology team members on use of beam modifying or immobilization devices in radiation treatment plans
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for oncology team members, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Advise oncology team members on use of beam modifying or immobilization devices in radiation treatment plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can recommend devices, but the advice lands in a live discussion with the treating team.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 9 tasks
Developing treatment plans and calculating doses for brachytherapy procedures
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at treatment plans, 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 · SupplementalSource: “Develop treatment plans, and calculate doses for brachytherapy procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 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: Brachytherapy planning and dose calculation are computed, with a qualified person confirming before the procedure.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing quality assurance system checks
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at quality assurance system checks, 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: “Perform quality assurance system checks, such as calibrations, on treatment planning computers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 42 out of 100 (35–49 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: Routine checks on planning computers follow documented procedures, though some calibration involves the equipment itself.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting radiation oncology-related research, such as improving computer treatment planning systems or developing new treatment devices
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put radiation oncology-related research well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Conduct radiation oncology-related research, such as improving computer treatment planning systems or developing new treatment devices.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 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: AI helps with analysis and drafting, but designing and running the studies is the researcher’s work.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing requirements for the use of patient immobilization devices and positioning aides
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for requirements, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Develop requirements for the use of patient immobilization devices and positioning aides, such as molds or casts, as part of treatment plans to ensure accurate delivery of radiation and comfort of patient.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (29–43 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: Specifying which supports a patient needs is a documented planning decision, though it depends on that patient’s body.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Teaching medical dosimetry, including its application, to students, radiation therapists or residents
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles medical dosimetry, including its application and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Teach medical dosimetry, including its application, to students, radiation therapists, or residents.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching dosimetry means guiding learners through real cases and answering their questions as they work.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Educating patients regarding treatment plans
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients regarding treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Educate patients regarding treatment plans, physiological reactions to treatment, or post-treatment care.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high 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: Explaining treatment and side effects to a worried patient works because a trusted clinician is sitting with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Fabricating beam modifying devices, such as compensators, shields and wedge filters
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: beam modifying devices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Fabricate beam modifying devices, such as compensators, shields, and wedge filters.” (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: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Making shields and wedges is workshop handwork on physical parts.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Fabricating patient immobilization devices, such as molds or casts, for radiation delivery
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: patient immobilization devices, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Fabricate patient immobilization devices, such as molds or casts, for radiation delivery.” (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: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Making molds and casts is done by hand, on and around the 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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Measuring the amount of radioactivity in patients or equipment
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the amount of radioactivity, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · SupplementalSource: “Measure the amount of radioactivity in patients or equipment, using radiation monitoring devices.” (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: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Measuring radioactivity means holding a monitor to the patient or the equipment.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $147,470a 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
- 3,410in 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: the delivery of radiation treatment in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: calculating the delivery of radiation treatment and calculating or verifying calculations. What it cannot do is be answerable: simulations need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. 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: supervising or performing simulations for tumor localizations is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 19% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 35% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 46% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 19 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. Calculating the delivery of radiation treatment 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 the delivery of radiation treatment, 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 radiation treatment plans 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 designing the arrangement of radiation fields to reduce exposure to critical patient structures. 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 medical dosimetrists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was radiation therapists: only about 10% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 28.6% less. Your own job splits about 19/81: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “design the arrangement of radiation fields to reduce exposure to critical patient…”, and let the exposed end go.
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.
Radiation Therapists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already record patient information, and their equivalent is to administer prescribed doses of radiation to specific body parts, using radiation therapy equipment…. 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: $105,310 against your $147,470, 28.6% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Recreational Therapists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already develop radiation treatment plans in consultation with members of the radiation oncology team, and their equivalent is to confer with members of treatment team to plan and evaluate therapy programs. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $61,960 against your $147,470, 58.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already develop requirements for the use of patient immobilization devices and positioning aides, and their equivalent is to position patients on cradle, attaching immobilization devices, if needed, to ensure appropriate placement…. Across both published task lists that is about 3% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 3% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $95,480 against your $147,470, 35.3% 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: 19% of its task weight, across 19 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 supervising or performing simulations for tumor localizations 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.
If you run a team doing this job
If you run a team doing this job, the conversation you owe them is the one on this page, and sooner than feels comfortable. Show them the ledger rather than a reassurance: the rows moving toward the software are calculating the delivery of radiation treatment, and the rows that are not are where you want your people visible. Ask each of them to do the this-week move and bring the list to your next one-to-one. It turns a rumour into a piece of work, and it tells you which parts of your team's week are actually at stake. And say the thing out loud that a team lead usually leaves unsaid: a shrinking team is your exposure too, so do the move yourself as well.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Health associate professionals n.e.c. 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 Health associate professionals n.e.c. and Medical radiographers. 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
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for medical dosimetrists, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 19% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for medical dosimetrists. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for medical dosimetrists 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 Medical Dosimetrists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 19 official task statements scored for Medical Dosimetrists (United States, SOC 29-2036), 19% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 42 out of 100 (range 37–48, band: partial). 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 “Medical Dosimetrists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Record patient information, such as radiation doses administered, in patient records” (81/100, very high); “Calculate, or verify calculations of, prescribed radiation doses” (69/100, high); “Calculate the delivery of radiation treatment, such as the amount or extent of radiation per session, based on the prescribed course of radiation therapy” (69/100, high). 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 “Medical Dosimetrists” stay human?
- About 46% 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: “Measure the amount of radioactivity in patients or equipment, using radiation monitoring devices” (0/100, minimal); “Fabricate patient immobilization devices, such as molds or casts, for radiation delivery” (0/100, minimal); “Fabricate beam modifying devices, such as compensators, shields, and wedge filters” (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 “Medical Dosimetrists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 19% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 46% 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 Medical Dosimetrists 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 19 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.
- 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.