>>13611452>AI can't even recognise a pneumothorax on CXR consistentlyYet
>you wouldn't say cardiologists are gonna get replaced because of AIs reading ECGs more accurately than they read imagingCardiologists don't look at EKGs all day, they do a lot more.
>When the AI gets it wrong, who is liable?Read my first post, Radiologist will exist, just that with the help of AI they will be able to read 5x the amount and thus reduce the market of Radiologists. Anyways, the liability issue does not save Doctors, just because this might be something legally unexplored, does not mean it will never be point of discussion.
>The diagnostic burden of the job makes up like 10% of the job even in disciplines like radiology.This is like saying 10% of the job of a surgeon is surgery. Yes of course there are other things to being a Radiology, but its a question of an AI speeding up the majority of their work to such a degree, that a department needs 2 radiologists instead of 5 (for example). Hell even a lot of the paper work could be able to be automated.
Just look at the U.S. and what is happening to Emergency Medicine. NPs are taking the scut work and you might see this a benefit for doctors, but take away enough scut work from doctors and leave the "difficult" cases for them and you will head into a situation where you only need 5 instead of 15 Emergency Doctors to run the department. This is not me preaching doomsday, this is literally what is developing right now in the U.S.
>Finally, and most importantly, medicine is a guild and a cartelSure unions exists, but they aren't all mighty. Yes, people want a machine in charge of their care, but your average layman do not even know what a radiologist is and what he does.
I am not your typical retard saying that primary care of internal medicine is going somewhere, I am just arguing that with exponentially better AI, the need for the total number of Radiologists will drop.
