US dataswitch to UK
Radiologists
preparing comprehensive interpretive reports of findings, providing counseling to radiologic patients to explain the processes and establishing or enforcing standards for protection of patients or personnel. 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: documenting the performance, interpretation or outcomes of all procedures. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.
That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, recognizing or treating complications during and after procedures, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.
Your week, as this page understands it
Diagnose and treat diseases and injuries using medical imaging techniques, such as x rays, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), nuclear medicine, and ultrasounds. May perform minimally invasive medical procedures and tests. The job title says “radiologists”. The real job is the part underneath: recognizing or treating complications during and after procedures. 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 radiologists is not one task. It is 30 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is recognizing or treating complications during and after procedures, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 16%
- changing shape
- 21%
- staying human
- 64%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 36 out of 100 (31–43 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 30 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 radiologists 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.
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- 5 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
4 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.
Obtaining patients' histories from electronic records
This is reading one thing and writing another: patients' histories in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Obtain patients' histories from electronic records, patient interviews, dictated reports, or by communicating with referring clinicians.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 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: Pulling a patient history together from electronic records and prior reports is document work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · 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 3/4.
Reviewing or transmiting images and information using picture archiving or communications systems
This is reading one thing and writing another: images in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Review or transmit images and information using picture archiving or communications systems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 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: Moving and retrieving images through imaging systems is already software work.
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 4/4.
Documenting the performance, interpretation or outcomes of all procedures
This is reading one thing and writing another: the performance, interpretation or outcomes of all procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Document the performance, interpretation, or outcomes of all procedures performed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 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: Writing up what was done and found is structured documentation that dictation and drafting tools handle well.
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 4/4.
Comparing nuclear medicine procedures with other types of procedures
This is reading one thing and writing another: nuclear medicine procedures in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Compare nuclear medicine procedures with other types of procedures, such as computed tomography, ultrasonography, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 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: Comparing what different scan types can show is a well-published knowledge question.
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 4/4.
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.
Performing or interpreting the outcomes of diagnostic imaging procedures
The software now makes the first pass at the outcomes of diagnostic imaging 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 5 · CoreSource: “Perform or interpret the outcomes of diagnostic imaging procedures including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computer tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), nuclear cardiology treadmill studies, mammography, or ultrasound.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 52 out of 100 (45–59 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: Reading scans is one of the strongest areas for these tools, yet the diagnosis is legally a doctor’s.
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 4/4.
Developing or monitoring procedures to ensure adequate quality control of images
The software now makes the first pass at 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 5 · CoreSource: “Develop or monitor procedures to ensure adequate quality control of images.” (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: Image quality checks are highly measurable and largely automated, with a specialist setting and reviewing the standards.
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.
Preparing comprehensive interpretive reports of findings
The software now makes the first pass at comprehensive interpretive reports of findings, 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: “Prepare comprehensive interpretive reports of findings.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 52 out of 100 (45–59 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: Draft reports from images are strong and improving, but the signed diagnostic report comes from a licensed radiologist.
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 4/4.
Staying human
20 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.
Conferring with medical professionals regarding image-based diagnoses
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for medical professionals regarding image-based diagnoses, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Confer with medical professionals regarding image-based diagnoses.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Findings summarise well in writing, but agreeing a diagnosis with colleagues is a discussion between specialists.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Communicating examination results or diagnostic information to referring physicians
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for examination results, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Communicate examination results or diagnostic information to referring physicians, patients, or families.” (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: Results can be written up clearly, but delivering them to a patient or family needs a person.
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.
Instructing radiologic staff in desired techniques
This work happens in the physical world: radiologic staff, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Instruct radiologic staff in desired techniques, positions, or projections.” (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: Teaching positioning and technique is largely shown hands-on at the scanner.
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.
Show the other 20 tasks
Formulating plans and procedures for nuclear medicine departments
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at plans, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Formulate plans and procedures for nuclear medicine departments.” (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; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Departmental plans and procedures are documents that drafting tools produce well from existing policy.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising other physicians of the clinical indications
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at other physicians of the clinical indications, 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 not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Advise other physicians of the clinical indications, limitations, assessments, or risks of diagnostic and therapeutic applications of radioactive materials.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Summarizing when a scan is appropriate and what its limits are draws on well-documented guidance.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing procedure requests and patients' medical histories to determine applicability of procedures and radioisotopes
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at procedure requests, 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 not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Review procedure requests and patients' medical histories to determine applicability of procedures and radioisotopes to be used.” (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: Checking requests against a patient history is records work, but the go-ahead is a doctor’s decision.
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.
Checking and approving the quality of diagnostic images before patients
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for the quality of diagnostic images before patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Check and approve the quality of diagnostic images before patients are discharged.” (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 rating behind it: Image quality can be checked automatically, but the sign-off before discharge rests with the doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Establishing or enforcing standards for protection of patients or personnel
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for standards, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Establish or enforce standards for protection of patients or personnel.” (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: Radiation safety standards are published, though a qualified physician usually has to own and enforce them.
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.
Establishing and enforcing radiation protection standards for patients and staff
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for radiation protection standards, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Establish and enforce radiation protection standards for patients and staff.” (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: Protection standards are documented, though a qualified physician normally has to set and enforce them.
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 nuclear medicine, diagnostic radiology or other specialties at graduate educational level
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles nuclear medicine, diagnostic radiology or other specialties and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Teach nuclear medicine, diagnostic radiology, or other specialties at graduate educational level.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 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 material is easy to prepare, but graduate teaching depends on a person leading the session.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Developing treatment plans for radiology patients
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Develop treatment plans for radiology patients.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 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: Treatment plans can be drafted, but the plan is legally the responsibility of a licensed physician.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in quality improvement activities
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles quality improvement activities and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Participate in quality improvement activities including discussions of areas where risk of error is high.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Error data can be analyzed, but the improvement work happens in discussion among the team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in continuing education activities to maintain and develop expertise
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put continuing education activities well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Participate in continuing education activities to maintain and develop expertise.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over.
The rating behind it: Study material is plentiful, but the point is the doctor building their own expertise.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Coordinating radiological services with other medical activities
staying humanThe value here is that a specific person handles radiological services and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Coordinate radiological services with other medical activities.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Scheduling can be helped along, but coordinating across departments is negotiation between people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Prescribing radionuclides and dosages to be administered to individual patients
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for radionuclides, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Prescribe radionuclides and dosages to be administered to individual patients.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (25–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high 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: Prescribing a radioactive dose is legally restricted to a specifically authorized licensed doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Directing nuclear medicine technologists or technicians regarding desired dosages
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for nuclear medicine technologists, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Direct nuclear medicine technologists or technicians regarding desired dosages, techniques, positions, and projections.” (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 rating behind it: Protocols can be drafted, but dosage direction to technologists comes from an authorized physician.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing counseling to radiologic patients to explain the processes
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for radiologic patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide counseling to radiologic patients to explain the processes, risks, benefits, or alternative treatments.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Explaining risks to an anxious patient depends on trust built in the room by a doctor.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring handling of radioactive materials to ensure that established procedures
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: radioactive materials, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Monitor handling of radioactive materials to ensure that established procedures are followed.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Checking that people actually follow radioactive-material handling rules means watching the work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · 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.
Calculating, measuring or preparing radioisotope dosages
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: radioisotope dosages, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Calculate, measure, or prepare radioisotope dosages.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 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: The math is easy, but measuring and preparing a radioactive dose is hands-on lab work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Recognizing or treating complications during and after procedures
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: complications, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Recognize or treat complications during and after procedures, including blood pressure problems, pain, oversedation, or bleeding.” (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: Spotting and treating bleeding or oversedation during a procedure requires a doctor 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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing interventional procedures, image-guided biopsy, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, transhepatic biliary drainage or nephrostomy catheter placement
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: interventional procedures, image-guided biopsy, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · SupplementalSource: “Perform interventional procedures such as image-guided biopsy, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, transhepatic biliary drainage, or nephrostomy catheter placement.” (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: Guiding a needle or catheter inside a patient is hands-on procedural work.
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.
Administering radioisotopes to clinical patients or researching subjects
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: radioisotopes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Administer radioisotopes to clinical patients or research subjects.” (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: Giving a patient a radioactive dose is hands-on clinical work by an authorized doctor.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Testing dosage evaluation instruments and surveying meters to ensure they are operating properly
staying humanThis work happens in the physical world: dosage evaluation instruments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance not publishedO*NET hasn't yet published importance ratings for this occupation's tasks, so the ordering here is ours, not theirs.
Source: “Test dosage evaluation instruments and survey meters to ensure they are operating properly.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence, and it moved between repeat runs, so the range is widened.
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: Testing survey meters means handling the instruments and taking readings from them.
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 3/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $420,860a 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
- 26,770in 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 performance, interpretation or outcomes of all procedures in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: documenting the performance, interpretation or outcomes of all procedures and obtaining patients' histories from electronic records. What it cannot do is be answerable: complications 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: recognizing or treating complications during and after procedures is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 16% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 21% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 64% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 30 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. Documenting the performance, interpretation or outcomes of all 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 the performance, interpretation or outcomes of all 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 medical professionals regarding image-based diagnoses 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 performing or interpreting the outcomes of diagnostic imaging procedures. 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 radiologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was magnetic resonance imaging technologists: only about 8% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 77.3% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 36/100 here, with only 16% of the task list in the top band, and “confer with medical professionals regarding image-based diagnoses” 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.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already perform or interpret the outcomes of diagnostic imaging procedures, and their equivalent is to operate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners. Across both published task lists that is about 8% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% 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 $420,860, 77.3% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Genetic Counselors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already communicate examination results or diagnostic information to referring physicians, patients, or families, and their equivalent is to interpret laboratory results and communicate findings to patients or physicians. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $100,040 against your $420,860, 76.2% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 3,740 of those jobs against 26,770 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 14% as many seats.
Neurologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already perform or interpret the outcomes of diagnostic imaging procedures, and their equivalent is to interpret the results of neuroimaging studies. Across both published task lists that is about 5% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 5% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $248,560 against your $420,860, 40.9% 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: 16% of its task weight, across 30 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 recognizing or treating complications during and after procedures arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Specialist medical practitioners and consultants is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Specialist medical practitioners and consultants and Generalist medical practitioners. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for radiologists, 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 16% 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 radiologists. 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 radiologists 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 Radiologists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 30 official task statements scored for Radiologists (United States, SOC 29-1224), 16% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 36 out of 100 (range 31–43, 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 “Radiologists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Document the performance, interpretation, or outcomes of all procedures performed” (88/100, very high); “Review or transmit images and information using picture archiving or communications systems” (72/100, high); “Compare nuclear medicine procedures with other types of procedures, such as computed tomography, ultrasonography, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, and ang…” (72/100, 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 “Radiologists” stay human?
- About 64% 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: “Test dosage evaluation instruments and survey meters to ensure they are operating properly” (0/100, minimal); “Administer radioisotopes to clinical patients or research subjects” (0/100, minimal); “Perform interventional procedures such as image-guided biopsy, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, transhepatic biliary drainage, or nephrostomy catheter…” (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 “Radiologists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 16% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 64% 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 Radiologists 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 30 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
About the data on this page
- One task scored differently between repeat runs, so its range on this page is wider. We would rather show the wobble than hide it.
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 5 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-with-imputed)
- 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.