251–260 of 486 posts
AI _is_ replacing radiologists. Where AI stands for "An Indian". Search for teleradiology, on Google and on HN too.
You do realize that in order to interpret imaging for a US based patient, any physician needs to have a US medical license?
I'm an interventional radiologist with a master's in computer science. People outside radiology don't get why AI hasn't taken over. Can AI read diagnostic images better than a radiologist? Almost certainly the answer is (or will be) yes. Will radiologists be replaced? Almost certainly the answer is no. Why not? Medical risk. Unless the law changes, a radiologist will have to sign off on each imaging report. So say yo…
> Unless the law changes... That's it? I don't know. Doesn't sound like a very big obstacle to me. But I don't think AI will replace radiologists even if there was a law that said like, "blah blah blah, automated reports, can't be sued, blah blah." I personally think the consulting work they do is really valuable and very difficult to automate, we would be in an AGI world where radiologists get replaced, which seems…
A lot of things are one law amendment away from happening and they aren’t happening. This could well become another mask mandate, which while being reasonable in itself, rubs people wrong way just enough to become a sacred issue.
I'm an interventional radiologist with a master's in computer science. People outside radiology don't get why AI hasn't taken over. Can AI read diagnostic images better than a radiologist? Almost certainly the answer is (or will be) yes. Will radiologists be replaced? Almost certainly the answer is no. Why not? Medical risk. Unless the law changes, a radiologist will have to sign off on each imaging report. So say yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't most of the stuff a radiologist does get double checked anyways by the doctor that orders the scan in the first place? I guess not a more typical screening scan like a mammogram. However, for anything else like a CT, MRI, Xray, etc. I expect the doctor/NP that ordered it in the first place will want to take a look at the image itself and not just the report on the image.
Not meaningfully. Beyond basics like a large tumor, a bone break, etc, there’s alot too it.
I'm an interventional radiologist with a master's in computer science. People outside radiology don't get why AI hasn't taken over. Can AI read diagnostic images better than a radiologist? Almost certainly the answer is (or will be) yes. Will radiologists be replaced? Almost certainly the answer is no. Why not? Medical risk. Unless the law changes, a radiologist will have to sign off on each imaging report. So say yo…
But this indicates lack of incentives to reduce healthcare costs by optimisation. If AI can do something well enough , and AI + humans surpass humans leading to costs reductions/ increased throughput this should be reflected in the workflows. I feel that human processes have inertia and for lack of a better word, gatekeepers feel that new, novel approaches should be adopted slowly and which is why we are not seeing t…
But if everyone involved has a profit motive, you end up cutting at those cost reductions. "We'll save you 100 bucks, so give us 50", done at the AI model level, the AI model repackager, the software suite that the hospital is using, the system integrators that manage the software suite installation for the hospital, the reseller of the integrator's services through some consultancy firm, etc etc.
There are so many layers involved, and each layer is so used to trying to take a slice, and we're talking about a good level of individualization in places that aren't fully public a la NHS, that the "vultures" (so to speak) are all there ready to take their cut.
Maybe anathema to say on this site, but de-agglomeration really seems to have killed just trying to make things better for the love of the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I only came to this thread to say that this is completely untrue: >Human radiologists spend a minority of their time on diagnostics and the majority on other activities, like talking to patients and fellow clinicians. The vast majority of radiologists do nothing other than: come in (or increasingly, stay at home), sit down at a computer, consume a series of medical images while dictating their findings, and then go h…
Agreed, I'm not sure where the OP from TFA is working but around here, radiologists have all been bought out and rolled into Radiology As A Service organizations. They work from home or at an office, never at a clinic, and have zero interactions with the patient. They perform diagnosis on whatever modality is presented and electronically file their work into their EMR. I work with a couple such orgs on remote access…
Generalizing this to all radiologists is just as wrong as the original article saying that radiologists don't spend the majority of their time reading images. Yes, some diagnostic radiologists can purely read and interpret images and file their results electronically (often remotely through PACS systems). But the vast majority of radiology clinics where I live have a radiologist on-site, and as one example, results for suspicious mammograms where I live in Texas are always given by a radiologist.
And as the other comment said, many radiologists who spend the majority of their time reading images also perform a number of procedures (e.g. stereotactic biopsies).
I'm an interventional radiologist with a master's in computer science. People outside radiology don't get why AI hasn't taken over. Can AI read diagnostic images better than a radiologist? Almost certainly the answer is (or will be) yes. Will radiologists be replaced? Almost certainly the answer is no. Why not? Medical risk. Unless the law changes, a radiologist will have to sign off on each imaging report. So say yo…
I'm an interventional radiologist with a master's in computer science. People outside radiology don't get why AI hasn't taken over. Can AI read diagnostic images better than a radiologist? Almost certainly the answer is (or will be) yes. Will radiologists be replaced? Almost certainly the answer is no. Why not? Medical risk. Unless the law changes, a radiologist will have to sign off on each imaging report. So say yo…
But this indicates lack of incentives to reduce healthcare costs by optimisation. If AI can do something well enough , and AI + humans surpass humans leading to costs reductions/ increased throughput this should be reflected in the workflows. I feel that human processes have inertia and for lack of a better word, gatekeepers feel that new, novel approaches should be adopted slowly and which is why we are not seeing t…
If statistically their error rate is better or around what a human does then their insurance is a factor of how many radiologists they intend to replace.
I'm an interventional radiologist with a master's in computer science. People outside radiology don't get why AI hasn't taken over. Can AI read diagnostic images better than a radiologist? Almost certainly the answer is (or will be) yes. Will radiologists be replaced? Almost certainly the answer is no. Why not? Medical risk. Unless the law changes, a radiologist will have to sign off on each imaging report. So say yo…
I'm moderately amused that as an interventional radiologist, you didn't bother to mention that IRs do actual procedures and don't just WFH. When I was doing my DxMP residency there was a joke among the radiology residents that IRs had slotted into the cushiest field of medicine and then flopped the landing by choosing the only subfield that requires physical work.
On a basic level, software exists to expedite repetitive human tasks. Diagnostic radiology is an extremely repetitive human task. When I read diagnostics, there’s a voice in the back of my head saying, “I should be writing code to automate this rather than dictating it myself.”
> In 2025, American diagnostic radiology residency programs offered a record 1,208 positions across all radiology specialties, a four percent increase from 2024, and the field’s vacancy rates are at all-time highs.
One reason I hear (anecdotally) that vacancy rates are so high is that fewer top quality people are going into radiology. That is, when med students choose a specialty, they're not just choosing for now, but they need to choose a specialty that will be around in 35-40 years. Many med students see the writing on the wall and are reluctant to invest a huge amount of blood, sweat, tears and money into a residency when tech may potentially short circuit their career eventually.
So what you see is that even though AI is not there yet (I'd really highlight this from the article: "First, while models beat humans on benchmarks, the standardized tests designed to measure AI performance, they struggle to replicate this performance in hospital conditions." For the programmers in the room, it's like AI that can solve all the leetcode problems but then falls over when you get into a moderately complicated situation) but there is a shortage of radiologists now because med students are worried what will happen in 10/15/20 years.