Physicians, Pathologists

Diagnose diseases and conduct lab tests using organs, body tissues, and fluids. Includes medical examiners.

The automation risk for the occupation “Physicians, Pathologists” is assessed at 41.4%, which is close to its base risk of 42.1%. This moderate automation risk is largely influenced by the nature of many core tasks in pathology that lend themselves to automation. For example, examining microscopic samples to identify diseases or abnormalities can be effectively supported by artificial intelligence and machine learning, which have seen advancements in image analysis and pattern recognition. Similarly, diagnosing diseases using a suite of laboratory techniques—like histology or molecular biology—often involves repetitive, data-intensive processes suitable for automation. Furthermore, writing pathology reports, which requires summarizing standardized findings, could be streamlined via natural language processing and automated transcription tools. Such tasks are routine, structured, and rely heavily on data, making them prime candidates for partial automation. Despite these susceptibilities, several critical responsibilities remain resistant to automation, keeping the overall risk below the threshold where mass replacement would be expected. For instance, pathologists frequently testify in depositions or trials as expert witnesses, a duty demanding nuanced communication, professional judgment, and the ability to articulate complex findings to a lay audience—skills that AI currently struggles to replicate. The role also encompasses conducting research and presenting scientific findings, which require intellectual curiosity, adaptability, and the capability to synthesize emerging knowledge in ways that go beyond rote data analysis. Additionally, specialized tasks like conducting genetic analyses on DNA or chromosomes for diagnosis necessitate a depth of understanding, hands-on expertise, and interpretive judgment that automated systems do not yet possess. A key constraint on automation for pathologists is the relatively high demand for originality within the role, as highlighted by the low scores (3.0% and 3.5%) in bottleneck skills like originality. These skills involve generating new ideas, approaches, or diagnostic hypotheses—abilities that are not easily automated. Much of pathology still depends on expert interpretation and the capacity to integrate subtle, overlapping data sources, particularly when cases are atypical or ambiguous. The occupation’s blend of technical knowledge and creative problem-solving means that, even as automation handles more routine analytical and reporting functions, pathologists will continue to be indispensable for research, complex diagnostics, and expert communication. Thus, while the job faces moderate automation risk, significant human elements remain that act as barriers to full technological substitution.