US dataswitch to UK
Radiation Therapists
administering prescribed doses of radiation to specific body parts, observing and reassuring patients during treatment and reporting unusual reactions to physician or turn equipment off if unexpected adverse reactions occur and educating, preparing. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: positioning patients for treatment with accuracy is work software can't reach.
What shifts is scheduling patients for treatment times. This page scores what today's tools actually do, not headlines.
Your week, as this page understands it
Provide radiation therapy to patients as prescribed by a radiation oncologist according to established practices and standards. Duties may include reviewing prescription and diagnosis; acting as liaison with physician and supportive care personnel; preparing equipment, such as immobilization, treatment, and protection devices; and maintaining records, reports, and files. May assist in dosimetry procedures and tumor localization. The job title says “radiation therapists”. The real job is the part underneath: positioning patients for treatment with accuracy. 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 radiation therapists is not one task. It is 22 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is positioning patients for treatment with accuracy, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 10%
- changing shape
- 4%
- staying human
- 86%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 17 out of 100 (13–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, across 22 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 radiation therapists 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.
- 1 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
2 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.
Maintaining records, reports or files
This is reading one thing and writing another: records, reports or files in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Maintain records, reports, or files as required, including such information as radiation dosages, equipment settings, or patients' reactions.” (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: Keeping records of doses, settings and reactions is desk work using data the system already holds.
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.
Scheduling patients for treatment times
This is reading one thing and writing another: patients in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Schedule patients for treatment times.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 85 out of 100 (78–92 allowing for uncertainty): very high 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: Fitting patients into machine time slots is exactly the kind of scheduling software handles well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Changing shape
1 taskTasks 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.
Calculating actual treatment dosages delivered during each session
The software now makes the first pass at actual treatment dosages delivered during each session, 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: “Calculate actual treatment dosages delivered during each session.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (40–54 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: The dose arithmetic is straightforward to compute, but rules require qualified staff to produce and check it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
19 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.
Following principles of radiation protection
This work happens in the physical world: principles of radiation protection, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Follow principles of radiation protection for patient, self, and others.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 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: Radiation safety is about what people actually do around the machine, not about producing a document.
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.
Reviewing prescription, diagnosis, patient chart and identification
This work happens in the physical world: prescription, diagnosis, patient chart and identification, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Review prescription, diagnosis, patient chart, and identification.” (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: Cross checking the chart is document work, but confirming the right patient happens in the treatment room.
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.
Positioning patients for treatment with accuracy
This work happens in the physical world: patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Position patients for treatment with accuracy, according to prescription.” (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: Getting a patient lined up precisely for treatment is hands on work at the machine.
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.
Educating, preparing and reassure patients and their families by answering questions
This work happens in the physical world: reassure patients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Educate, prepare, and reassure patients and their families by answering questions, providing physical assistance, and reinforcing physicians' advice regarding treatment reactions or post-treatment care.” (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: Reassuring worried patients and families, and physically helping them, depends on a person being there.
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.
Checking radiation therapy equipment to ensure proper operation
This work happens in the physical world: radiation therapy equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Check radiation therapy equipment to ensure proper operation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 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: Checking the machine works properly means testing it physically before patients arrive.
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.
Administering prescribed doses of radiation to specific body parts
This work happens in the physical world: prescribed doses of radiation, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Administer prescribed doses of radiation to specific body parts, using radiation therapy equipment according to established practices and standards.” (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: Delivering radiation to a patient needs a licensed person operating the machine in the room.
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.
Observing and reassuring patients during treatment and reporting unusual reactions to physician or turn equipment off if unexpected adverse reactions occur
This work happens in the physical world: patients during treatment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Observe and reassure patients during treatment and report unusual reactions to physician or turn equipment off if unexpected adverse reactions occur.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Watching over a patient during treatment and reacting fast needs a person in the room.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Show the other 12 tasks
Helping physicians, radiation oncologists or clinical physicists to prepare physical or technical aspects of radiation treatment plans
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for physicians, radiation oncologists or clinical physicists, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Help physicians, radiation oncologists, or clinical physicists to prepare physical or technical aspects of radiation treatment plans, using information about patient condition and anatomy.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 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 rating behind it: Planning software automates parts of this, but a qualified physicist or dosimetrist must produce the final plan.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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.
Acting as liaison with physicist and supportive care personnel
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles liaison and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Act as liaison with physicist and supportive care personnel.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Passing information between physicists and care staff works better when a person knows both sides.
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 2/4.
Entering data into computer and setting controls to operate or adjust equipment or regulate dosage
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: data, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Enter data into computer and set controls to operate or adjust equipment or regulate dosage.” (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: Typing settings is straightforward, but setting the machine and dose is a licensed person's job at the console.
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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Training or supervising student or subordinate radiotherapy 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 radiotherapy technologists.” (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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Training notes draft easily, but showing a trainee the machine happens in person.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Implementing appropriate follow-up care plans
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: appropriate follow-up care plans, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Implement appropriate follow-up care plans.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 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: Follow up plans draft from records, but carrying them out involves seeing the patient and clinical sign off.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Checking for side effects, such as skin irritation, nausea or hair loss to assess patients' reaction
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: side effects, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Check for side effects, such as skin irritation, nausea, or hair loss to assess patients' reaction to treatment.” (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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Spotting skin reactions or hair loss means looking at and talking with the patient in person.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing assistance to other healthcare personnel during dosimetry procedures and tumor localization
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: assistance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide assistance to other healthcare personnel during dosimetry procedures and tumor localization.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 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: Helping colleagues during measurement and tumor locating procedures means being in the room with 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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting most treatment sessions independently
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: most treatment sessions, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Conduct most treatment sessions independently, in accordance with the long-term treatment plan and under the general direction of the patient's 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: Running a treatment session means being with the patient at the machine.
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.
Preparing or constructing equipment, such as immobilization, treatment or protection devices
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: equipment, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Prepare or construct equipment, such as immobilization, treatment, or protection 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Making molds and shields for a patient is hands on workshop work.
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.
Photographing treated area of patient and processing film
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: treated area of patient, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Photograph treated area of patient and process film.” (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: Photographing the treated area means being with the patient and handling the equipment.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Storing, sterilizing or preparing the special applicators containing the radioactive substance implanted by the physician
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the special applicators containing the radioactive substance, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Store, sterilize, or prepare the special applicators containing the radioactive substance implanted by the 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: Preparing and sterilizing radioactive applicators is careful physical handling.
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.
Assisting in the preparation of sealed radioactive materials
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: the preparation of sealed radioactive materials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Assist in the preparation of sealed radioactive materials, such as cobalt, radium, cesium, or isotopes, for use in radiation treatments.” (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: Preparing sealed radioactive sources is hands on work under strict 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.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $105,310a 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
- 17,070in 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: records, reports or files in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: scheduling patients for treatment times and maintaining records, reports or files. What it cannot do is be answerable: patients 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: positioning patients for treatment with accuracy is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 10% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 4% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 86% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 22 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. Scheduling patients for treatment times 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 records, reports or files, 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 principles of radiation protection 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 calculating actual treatment dosages delivered during each session. 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 radiation therapists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was medical dosimetrists: only about 9% of its durable work is work you already do and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 17/100 here, with only 10% of the task list in the top band, and “follow principles of radiation protection for patient, self, and others” 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.
Medical Dosimetrists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already prepare or construct equipment, and their equivalent is to fabricate patient immobilization devices. 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. And it is a narrow door: about 3,410 of those jobs against 17,070 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 20% as many seats.
Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already observe and reassure patients during treatment and report unusual reactions to physician or…, and their equivalent is to observe patients, charting and reporting changes in patients' conditions. 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. It is a pay cut, in those words: $64,400 against your $105,310, 38.8% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Radiologic Technologists and Technicians
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already observe and reassure patients during treatment and report unusual reactions to physician or…, and their equivalent is to monitor patients' conditions and reactions, reporting abnormal signs to physician. 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: $80,110 against your $105,310, 23.9% 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: 10% of its task weight, across 22 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 positioning patients for treatment with accuracy 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 radiation therapists, 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 10% 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 radiation therapists. 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 radiation therapists 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 Radiation Therapists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 22 official task statements scored for Radiation Therapists (United States, SOC 29-1124), 10% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 17 out of 100 (range 13–22, band: minimal). 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 “Radiation Therapists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Schedule patients for treatment times” (85/100, very high); “Maintain records, reports, or files as required, including such information as radiation dosages, equipment settings, or patients' reactions” (66/100, high); “Calculate actual treatment dosages delivered during each session” (47/100, 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 “Radiation Therapists” stay human?
- About 86% 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: “Assist in the preparation of sealed radioactive materials, such as cobalt, radium, cesium, or isotopes, for use in radiation treatments” (0/100, minimal); “Store, sterilize, or prepare the special applicators containing the radioactive substance implanted by the physician” (0/100, minimal); “Photograph treated area of patient and process film” (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 “Radiation Therapists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 10% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 86% 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 Radiation Therapists 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 22 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.
- 1 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.