- Joined
- Apr 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,822
- Reaction score
- 821
Rads vs. Pathology
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Rads vs. Pathology
- Thread starter KeratinPearls
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 28,059
- Reaction score
- 441
People say this a lot, I never get it. I didn't really consider radiology as a choice for residency - people told me I had the numbers for it, but I wasn't interested in it. There are some similarities, but I think there are substantial differences and many people happy in one would not be happy in the other. Radiology was about 6th on my list of fields to pick, behind medicine, neurology, urology, can't remember what else. Still ahead of ER, OB, and anesthesia though. I dunno, radiology just seemed too vague for me, I didn't like the procedures that made up part of it. I also didn't like the prelim year 😉 A lot of it probably comes from not spending much time in the field. Maybe I would have liked it more, I dunno. I always enjoy sitting with radiologists, particularly good ones, and looking over films with them.
Personally, I think part of the psychology of the choice for those trying to make the choice is which forum you post in. Almost all of these questions are posted in one forum or the other, but very rarely both (and not because cross posting isn't permitted). I don't know why that is. Does someone with an interest in pathology post in radiology because they are afraid of what pathologists will say, or are they looking to be convinced by radiologists? Or does someone with an interest in radiology post in radiology because they are looking for validation?
As far as compensation, personally I think radiology is the next target for cost cutting and the income benefits of radiology will not last forever. Enjoy it while it lasts though!
This question gets asked A LOT, so the search engine can be your friend. One of these links below has a further link to another 5 threads. Enjoy.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=421982
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=198420
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=166390
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2006
- Messages
- 445
- Reaction score
- 4
Next target? It's been a target for years now. But like most fields, I think radiologists learn to adapt, work more efficiently (and harder), and have new technologies to keep compensation stable. Rads future is still one of the brightest in my opinion, imaging is going up year after year, self-referral is likely to go down with ACR lobbying, and radiology goes hand in hand with technology advancement (VC, cryoablation, etc). However, I hear recent stock falls of telerad companies may hurt ur ability to earn a lot of money while sitting on the beach...damn.
Same goes for other fields like cardiology who've taken hits from imaging and procedures. They learn to adapt and change. Also they increase the amount of stenting they do...lol!
Pathology on the other hand, although a great field, seems to always be behind technology and I question its growth potential. However, it is the most scientific of medical fields. If you are a natural scientist and enjoy all those different antibodies then pathology would be the natural choice. They make good money too but i hear it may be more difficult to find a good job where you want to go.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 28,059
- Reaction score
- 441
That's one of the weird things about pathology though, the more technological advances there are, the more you find out that the traditional basic methods are more effective. We have hundreds of immunostains and fancy protocols, computerized algorithms, yet the main prognostic features are still based on morphology on a slide, for most tumors. Medicine has a long way to go in many areas, I don't think any diagnostic field is really going anywhere for a long time. Pathology has its "cash cow" reimbursement areas too, like dermpath or GI path or prostate biopsies. But profit margin is so important in medicine that in the future, these areas are going to be the ones that get squeezed by payors. You can try to compensate and work harder and innovate all you want, but things will likely come to a head at some point. Medicine is a declining field for moneymaking unless you are in a non medical position, interestingly (CEOs, drug companies, whatever).
However, if you are in the field or directly impacted by it, you see the technological advances in it more than in other fields. So while you may not see pathology advances, they are there, many are just not in use or practice yet. Computerizing pathology images is actually a lot more difficult than computerizing radiology images, because there are so many more variables. To make it effective, you have to get beyond the point of being more effective than a human eye looking at a slide, which is pretty effective.
Thus, back to the main point, it behooves anyone considering both fields to find which one is more suited to them and which one they will excel at, innovate at, etc. Not which one has the biggest profit potential, because that could change and the ones who excel are not going to be the ones who jumped in just because it looked attractive financially.
However, if you are in the field or directly impacted by it, you see the technological advances in it more than in other fields. So while you may not see pathology advances, they are there, many are just not in use or practice yet. Computerizing pathology images is actually a lot more difficult than computerizing radiology images, because there are so many more variables. To make it effective, you have to get beyond the point of being more effective than a human eye looking at a slide, which is pretty effective.
Thus, back to the main point, it behooves anyone considering both fields to find which one is more suited to them and which one they will excel at, innovate at, etc. Not which one has the biggest profit potential, because that could change and the ones who excel are not going to be the ones who jumped in just because it looked attractive financially.
