US dataswitch to UK
Nuclear Medicine Technologists
administering radiopharmaceuticals or radiation intravenously to detect or treat diseases, producing a computer-generated or film image for interpretation by a physician and explaining test procedures and safety precautions to patients and providing them with assistance during test procedures. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: administering radiopharmaceuticals or radiation intravenously to detect or treat diseases is work software can't reach.
What shifts is recording and processing results of procedures. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.
Your week, as this page understands it
Prepare, administer, and measure radioactive isotopes in therapeutic, diagnostic, and tracer studies using a variety of radioisotope equipment. Prepare stock solutions of radioactive materials and calculate doses to be administered by radiologists. Subject patients to radiation. Execute blood volume, red cell survival, and fat absorption studies following standard laboratory techniques. The job title says “nuclear medicine technologists”. The real job is the part underneath: administering radiopharmaceuticals or radiation intravenously to detect or treat diseases. 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 nuclear medicine technologists is not one task. It is 17 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is administering radiopharmaceuticals or radiation intravenously to detect or treat diseases, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 7%
- changing shape
- 16%
- staying human
- 77%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 20 out of 100 (15–25 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 17 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 nuclear medicine technologists 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
1 taskTasks 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.
Recording and processing results of procedures
This is reading one thing and writing another: results of procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Record and process results of procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up and processing results is desk work using data the department already holds digitally.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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
3 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.
Producing a computer-generated or film image for interpretation by a physician
The software now makes the first pass at a computer-generated or film image, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Produce a computer-generated or film image for interpretation by a physician.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 49 out of 100 (42–56 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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Turning scan data into an image for the doctor is largely automatic workstation work.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Processing cardiac function studies, using computer
The software now makes the first pass at cardiac function studies, 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: “Process cardiac function studies, using computer.” (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: Processing heart study data is number crunching software already does, with a qualified person checking the output.
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.
Developing treatment procedures for nuclear medicine treatment programs
The software now makes the first pass at treatment procedures, 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 3 · SupplementalSource: “Develop treatment procedures for nuclear medicine treatment programs.” (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: Writing treatment protocols from published guidance is document work, with a qualified clinician approving 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.
Staying human
13 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.
Administering radiopharmaceuticals or radiation intravenously to detect or treat diseases
This work happens in the physical world: radiopharmaceuticals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Administer radiopharmaceuticals or radiation intravenously to detect or treat diseases, using radioisotope equipment, under direction of a physician.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Injecting a radioactive drug into a patient needs a trained person physically present with the syringe and the scanner.
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 2/4.
Detecting and mapping radiopharmaceuticals in patients' bodies
This work happens in the physical world: radiopharmaceuticals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Detect and map radiopharmaceuticals in patients' bodies, using a camera to produce photographic or computer images.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (0–12 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 builds the pictures, but someone must still position the patient and run the camera in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Explaining test procedures and safety precautions to patients and providing them with assistance during test procedures
This work happens in the physical world: test procedures, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Explain test procedures and safety precautions to patients and provide them with assistance during test procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Explaining and physically helping a patient through a scan needs a reassuring person beside them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Disposing of radioactive materials and storing radiopharmaceuticals
This work happens in the physical world: radioactive materials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Dispose of radioactive materials and store radiopharmaceuticals, following radiation safety procedures.” (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: Handling and disposing of radioactive material is physical work governed by safety rules.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Calculating, measuring and recording radiation dosage or radiopharmaceuticals
This work happens in the physical world: radiation dosage, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Calculate, measure, and record radiation dosage or radiopharmaceuticals received, used, and disposed, using computer and following physician's prescription.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 allowing for uncertainty): low 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: The math and record keeping are easy for software, but measuring the actual dose needs hands on the equipment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing quality control checks on laboratory equipment or cameras
This work happens in the physical world: quality control checks, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Perform quality control checks on laboratory equipment or cameras.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 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: Quality checks mean physically testing the camera with test objects, even though results are recorded digitally.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 7 tasks
Gathering information on patients' illnesses and medical history to guide the choice of diagnostic procedures for therapy
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for information, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Gather information on patients' illnesses and medical history to guide the choice of diagnostic procedures for therapy.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 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: Much of the history sits in the record already, but asking the patient still matters for choosing the scan.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Training or supervising student or subordinate nuclear medicine technologists
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: student, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Train or supervise student or subordinate nuclear medicine technologists.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Teaching material drafts easily, but showing a trainee how to scan happens at the machine.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Maintaining and calibrating radioisotope and laboratory equipment
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: radioisotope, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Maintain and calibrate radioisotope and laboratory equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 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: Keeping the equipment working means hands on the machine, even if the readings are digital.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Measuring glandular activity, blood volume, red cell survival or radioactivity of patient, using scanners, Geiger counters, scintillometers or other laboratory equipment
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: glandular activity, blood volume, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Measure glandular activity, blood volume, red cell survival, or radioactivity of patient, using scanners, Geiger counters, scintillometers, or other laboratory equipment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 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: Taking these measurements means being with the patient and handling the instruments.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing stock radiopharmaceuticals, adhering to safety standards that minimize radiation exposure to workers and patients
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: stock radiopharmaceuticals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Prepare stock radiopharmaceuticals, adhering to safety standards that minimize radiation exposure to workers and patients.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Mixing and preparing radioactive drugs is hands on lab work under strict safety rules.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Positioning radiation fields, radiation beams and patient to allow for most effective treatment of patient's disease
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: radiation fields, radiation beams and patient, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Position radiation fields, radiation beams, and patient to allow for most effective treatment of patient's disease, using computer.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Positioning a patient and the beam is physical work done at the bedside.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Adding radioactive substances to biological specimens
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: radioactive substances, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Add radioactive substances to biological specimens, such as blood, urine, or feces, to determine therapeutic drug or hormone levels.” (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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Adding radioactive material to blood or urine samples is bench work done by hand.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · 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
- $101,370a 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
- 17,080in 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: results of procedures in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: recording and processing results of procedures and producing a computer-generated or film image for interpretation by a physician. What it cannot do is be answerable: radiopharmaceuticals 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: administering radiopharmaceuticals or radiation intravenously to detect or treat diseases is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 7% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 16% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 77% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 17 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. Recording and processing results of procedures 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 results of procedures, 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 radiopharmaceuticals 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 producing a computer-generated or film image for interpretation by a physician. 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 nuclear medicine technologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was radiologists: only about 6% of its durable work is work you already do and the 4.2× pay gap is the market pricing a barrier. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 20/100 here, with only 7% of the task list in the top band, and “administer radiopharmaceuticals or radiation intravenously to detect or treat diseases, using radioisotope…” 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.
Radiologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already maintain and calibrate radioisotope and laboratory equipment, and their equivalent is to calculate, measure, or prepare radioisotope dosages. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $420,860 against your $101,370 is 4.15× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 6% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
Cardiologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already train or supervise student or subordinate nuclear medicine technologists, and their equivalent is to supervise or train cardiology technologists or students. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $496,010 against your $101,370 is 4.89× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 4% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already explain test procedures and safety precautions to patients and provide them with assistance…, and their equivalent is to explain procedures and discuss test results or prescribed treatments with patients. 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. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $292,910 against your $101,370 is 2.89× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 3% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
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: 7% of its task weight, across 17 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 administering radiopharmaceuticals or radiation intravenously to detect or treat diseases 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 Medical radiographers 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
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Medical radiographers. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
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 nuclear medicine technologists, 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 7% 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 nuclear medicine technologists. 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 nuclear medicine technologists 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 Nuclear Medicine Technologists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 17 official task statements scored for Nuclear Medicine Technologists (United States, SOC 29-2033), 7% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 20 out of 100 (range 15–25, 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 “Nuclear Medicine Technologists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Record and process results of procedures” (66/100, high); “Process cardiac function studies, using computer” (56/100, partial); “Develop treatment procedures for nuclear medicine treatment programs” (56/100, 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 “Nuclear Medicine Technologists” stay human?
- About 77% 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: “Administer radiopharmaceuticals or radiation intravenously to detect or treat diseases, using radioisotope equipment, under direction of a physician” (0/100, minimal); “Add radioactive substances to biological specimens, such as blood, urine, or feces, to determine therapeutic drug or hormone levels” (0/100, minimal); “Position radiation fields, radiation beams, and patient to allow for most effective treatment of patient's disease, using computer” (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 “Nuclear Medicine Technologists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 7% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 77% 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 Nuclear Medicine Technologists 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 17 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.