The field of Radiology will be replaced by advanced computers

[hanksquirrel]

---

Members don't see this ad.

This is what I have been told is a risk of the future of radiology by some people. Can anyone shed some light on this? I enjoy the field, but I'm concerned by the advancement of technology.....could this be a problem?

 

[snaggletooth]

Of course. Haven't you seen T3? jesus christ.

 

[MacGyver]

In the immediate future? No way.

In the long term future? Possibly

Nobody can tell you for sure what the future holds. Out of all the medical fields, however, radiology is particularly suited for computer work.

Today's software programs are not capable of the task, but in 30, 40 years? Who knows?

 

[HEME-ONC]

So what would happen to the radiologist when they are replaced by "The Machines"

 

[MustafaMond]

Originally posted by MacGyver

Today's software programs are not capable of the task, but in 30, 40 years? Who knows?

Sup Macgyver. Still talkin' out of your rear-end, I see.
AI is already well-recognized and used for mammography, and coming soon---->
Computer-aided diagnosis to distinguish benign from malignant solitary pulmonary nodules on radiographs: ROC analysis of radiologists' performance--initial experience.

Shiraishi J, Abe H, Engelmann R, Aoyama M, MacMahon H, Doi K.

Department of Radiology, Kurt Rossmann Laboratories for Radiologic Image Research, University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC2026, IL 60637, USA. [email protected]

PURPOSE: To evaluate radiologists' performance for determining a distinction between benign and malignant pulmonary nodules on chest radiographs without and with use of a computer-aided diagnosis scheme. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three chest radiographs that depicted 31 primary lung cancers and 22 benign nodules were used. The likelihood measure of malignancy for each nodule was determined by using an automated computerized scheme. Sixteen radiologists (nine attending radiologists and seven radiology residents) participated in an observer study in which cases were interpreted first without and then with use of the scheme. The radiologists' performance was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The mean area under the best-fit binormal receiver operating characteristic curve plotted in the unit square (Az) values of radiologists who interpreted images without and with the scheme were 0.743 and 0.817, respectively. The performance of radiologists was improved significantly when the scheme was used (P =.002). However, the performance (Az = 0.889) of the computer alone exceeded these results by a substantial margin. The average change in radiologists' confidence level for interpretation without and with the scheme was highly correlated (r = 0.845) with the likelihood measure of malignancy, which was presented as computer output. CONCLUSION: This scheme for computer-aided diagnosis has the potential to improve the accuracy of radiologists' performance in the classification of benign and malignant solitary pulmonary nodules. Copyright RSNA, 2003

 

[MacGyver]

mustafa,

you are the one talking out of your ass.

I guess you think mammography is exactly the same thing as MRI.

The question on this thread was for ALL RADIOLOGY, not just mammosgraphy.

My statement stands. In the next few years, there will not be a standalone computer that can replace a radiologist.

Talk to me again in 20 years or so and things might be different

 

[Rads Resident]

The only ones who would suggest that radiologists will be replaced by computers are people who either couldn't get accepted into the field or have come to realize only too late that they should have tried (and are now trying to convince themselves that they're lucky they didn't).

It's a silly notion.

 

[snaggletooth]

Ok everyone keep your hats on the robots aren't coming anytime soon, but check out this. It's kind of straying off the subject a bit, but anyways.....


Alter our DNA or robots will take over, warns Hawking
Special report: the ethics of genetics

Nick Paton Walsh
Sunday September 2, 2001
The Observer

Stephen Hawking, the acclaimed scientist and writer, reignited the debate over genetic engineering yesterday by recommending that humans change their DNA through genetic modification to keep ahead of advances in computer technology and stop intelligent machines from 'taking over the world'.

He made the remarks in an interview with the German magazine Focus. Because technology is advancing so quickly, Hawking said, 'computers double their performance every month'. Humans, in contrast, are developing much more slowly, and so must change their DNA make-up or be left behind. 'The danger is real,' he said, 'that this [computer] intelligence will develop and take over the world.'

Hawking, author of the best-selling A Brief History Of Time and a professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, recommended 'well-aimed manipulation' of human genes. Through this humans could 'raise the complexity of... the DNA [they are born with], thereby improving people'. He conceded the road to genetic modification would be a long one but said: 'We should follow this road if we want biological systems to remain superior to electronic ones.'

He also advocated cyber-technology - direct links between human brains and computers. 'We must develop as quickly as possible technologies that make possible a direct connection between brain and computer, so that artificial brains contribute to human intelligence rather than opposing it.'

While scientists are excited by the huge possibilities of genetic engineering and human interaction with machines, ethicists urge caution as the experiments could go wrong.

Sue Mayer, director of policy research group Genewatch, rounded on Hawking's remarks. 'He is trying to take the debate about genetic engineering in the wrong direction,' she said. 'It is naive to think that genetic engineering will help us stay ahead of computers.'

 

[Hendooneh]

Actually computers have about doubled their power every 18 months not every month. And the assumption in thier taking over the world also assumes that this will continue. If you have been following technology even remotely you will know that this trend will end very soon. I think Its safe to assume that this trend has another 10 years left in it maybe 20 years maximum. After that the continuous miniturization that has lead to the increase in speed of computers will come to a halt when the quantum mechanics laws start interfering with the process.

As a parallel take a look at the auto industry. Imagine being born around the turn of the 20th century when the automobiles were first being constructed. The first cars could only go about 15-20 miles an hour with speed limits set by cars going 30 miles per hour. My 50 cc engine moped goes faster than that today. However we aren't really continueing to see improvements in speeds of cars today because factors other than the ability to go fast have taken over.

It is unimaginable to work with a 10-15 year old computer today however computers were designed to last 20+ years with a little maintenance of their mechanical parts. In 10-15 years this will all change and it will be common for people to use computers for 20+ years.

Anyway my point wasn't to argue the steven hawking statement as that's silly enough. I just don't think even a 100Ghz computer will be sophisticated enough to do the job of a radiologist.

 

[daphilster]

Really this question can only be answered by those who know both AI and medical science. Not just those who know medicine and can speculate. I've studied a bit of AI, and I can tell you that current computer AI is extremely primitive.
There used to be a push for artificial neural networks because they are good at pattern recognition. Basically, these networks train on sample data and come up with correlations. This type of programming is more in the realm of research than anything practical.

But then again, i'm not saying there does not exist the remote remote possibility that we will have computers make these decisions in 50-100 years or something (hell, ANY job is at risk potentially)

 

[Santiago]

Originally posted by Rads Resident
The only ones who would suggest that radiologists will be replaced by computers are people who either couldn't get accepted into the field or have come to realize only too late that they should have tried (and are now trying to convince themselves that they're lucky they didn't).

It's a silly notion.

My feelings exactly..

 

[Jmb3d]

This is the funniest forum I've read yet. If computers start to take over my job, you better believe I'm going to have gallons of water and giant sledge hammer around to secure my job.

(Well that is if they don't consider it murder to kill a machine!)

 

[Big Bill]

I think you guys are missing a point when it comes to this subject. what happens when a computer makes a mistake or breaks down at the most critical moment. I mean who are you going to blame then. There has to be human intervention I mean once a machine makes a mistake what will happen next. A misdiagnosis could put that company out of business who manufactured that program.

 

[PTCA]

Originally posted by Dr. Cuts
IMHO if there's a field that can be replaced by computers it's IM... let me think back to my high school computer math days...

10 enter patient
20 symptoms = PATTERN RECOGNITION
30 treatment = ALGORITHM MEMORIZATION
40 discharge
50 if patient deteriorates and returns with same symptoms, GOTO 10
60 if patient dead, END

My 5-Minute Clinical Consult is a fantastic Internist... much better than I am anyway...

Absolutely true!
The moment they make cerebral implants of these things I torching my Current.

 

[edinOH]

Don't you realize that this discussion is taking place on the enemy's turf? Don't you realize?!!

These computers know everything that is discussed here! We must stop this madness before it is too late. These electronic desk-top spys are recording everything and planning our future. We must destroy them before it's too late. Certainly before they start medical school. If I'm wrong then my name isn't John Connor.

Come with me if you want to live...

 

[Lisa_OSU]

I think if radiology attendings really looked like that, there would be a lot more women going into radiology!

 

[southcom]

I'm not so sure about computer taking over for rads but what I have heard of are rads not leaving the house just haveing the x-rays sent to them by email reading them and emailing the diag back, what I would be concerned with is a cost cutting move of have a huge centrialized department of rads and having the xrays sent there read and sent back, b/c as ya know with the steadly increased bandwith it wold be as easy to sent the xray to across the country or china even than it would to the hospitials own rad a few miles away. I'm scared this will reduce the demand for radioligist, even if it doesn't it will greatly limit the possible work locations, any opinions?

 

[fonzy]

Originally posted by Lisa_OSU
I think if radiology attendings really looked like that, there would be a lot more women going into radiology!

You for sure.....😉

 

[argonauta]

I've worked for a while as a software engineer and I've done a fair amount of AI work (genetic programming, neural nets, that type of stuff)

I woud definitely not worry about computers taking over Rads. heheh. When things get to the point, society will be so completely different than it is today, that'll be your last worry.

I do worry however (as a pre-med who has thought of going into rads for a while) about offshore rads taking over, work being shipped overseas, &c. As a sw engineer, I've seen how thoroughly devasted a job market can be.

I don't need the stratospheric salaries (in fact, didn't know about them til I started reading SND), but I sure as hell hope we'll have a somewhat stable, decent compensation.

 

[fonzy]

I think that computer programs developed to read radiological images will only lead to faster advancement of image analysis and thus resulting in better clinical interpretations and health care. Such steps only give people more time and better insight for further research.
However, such computer programs will never replace either doctors or engineers.

 

[MacGyver]

My prediction: in 20 years 80% of rads images will be read/interpreted overseas.

The cost savings is absolutely enormous.

The American Board of Radiology is considering a move to let foreign docs train to be ABR certified overseas.

If that happens, say bye-bye to American radiologists.

 

[eddieberetta]

In addition to issues relating to liability and the quality of reporting, physicians need to be able to consult on cases with radiologists, prior to and after imaging studies are done -- not convenient with outsourced reading. Like with any other specialty, they will want to consult physicians they know and trust. In addition, radiologists supervise and provide oversight to the entire imaging process and department. Outsourcing will play a role, especially in night imaging and specialty consultations for remote areas, but the predominant mode of imaging provision will be by local in-house radiologists. And obviously IR requires in house radiologists.

 

[fonzy]

Originally posted by eddieberetta
In addition to issues relating to liability and the quality of reporting, physicians need to be able to consult on cases with radiologists, prior to and after imaging studies are done -- not convenient with outsourced reading. Like with any other specialty, they will want to consult physicians they know and trust. In addition, radiologists supervise and provide oversight to the entire imaging process and department. Outsourcing will play a role, especially in night imaging and specialty consultations for remote areas, but the predominant mode of imaging provision will be by local in-house radiologists. And obviously IR requires in house radiologists.

I agree.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by eddieberetta
In addition to issues relating to liability and the quality of reporting, physicians need to be able to consult on cases with radiologists, prior to and after imaging studies are done -- not convenient with outsourced reading. Like with any other specialty, they will want to consult physicians they know and trust. In addition, radiologists supervise and provide oversight to the entire imaging process and department. Outsourcing will play a role, especially in night imaging and specialty consultations for remote areas, but the predominant mode of imaging provision will be by local in-house radiologists. And obviously IR requires in house radiologists.

If the ABR pushes thru with its plan to offer certification to overseas rads, then liability is not an issue.

The only reason liability would be an issue is if you have non-board certified rads doing the image interpretation.

IR makes up only a small percentage of overall radiologists, thats why I said 80% instead of 100%. IR makes up less than 10% of all rads though.

 

[eddieberetta]

MacGyver,

I am not sure what plan in. re. the ABR you are referring to. Why don't you provide a link? As far as I know, only physicians who have completed a 5 year rads residency in the US or Canada are eligible to become ABR certified.

1.) Liability is still an issue. If a person is not physically in the US, they are not bound by US laws. Who takes responsibility? (It would have to be either the hospital or the american-soil agency which provides the consultation service. There would potentially be no radiologist/physician accountable for errors (in contrast to every other specialty) and/or the american-soil agency which outsources the reads would have to get insured. In which case they will continue to charge american-style prices for reads.

In the current nighthawk/outsourcing schemes, either the main (day)radiology group most of the liability (and the nighthawk only provides "wet" reads) or the nighthawk agency provides a full read and takes full responsibility.

What this means in practice is that the nighthawk/outsourcing services are not cheaper that having an in-house radiologist and certainly do not replace the latter. I want to stress this point. The system does however allow for night coverage and specialty consultations in some places where this would otherwise not be available.

2.) There are many other aspects of providing radiology services other than IR which require in-house supervision and oversight by radiologists. In addition, radiologists, like other specialists, develop relationships with referring doctors. I already explained this in my last post.

 

[droliver]

Originally posted by eddieberetta
What this means in practice is that the nighthawk/outsourcing services are not cheaper that having an in-house radiologist and certainly do not replace the latter. I want to stress this point. The system does however allow for night coverage and specialty consultations in some places where this would otherwise not be available.

But Eddie,

haven't some of the early adoptees of this been in large metro areas? (ie. B&W in Boston)

 

[eddieberetta]

I think it is MGH -- but the current scheme is apparently mainly for night reads of things like ICU films (which, aren't even read at night in most centers, incl MGH). In the MGH scheme, the in-house radiologists co sign the reads in the am (and collect the fee ;-)). MGH radiology dept wants to expand the program but it is not clear who will take responsibility for remote-read films. Presently, it is the supervising local radiologists.

However, in general, the most common set-up for remote reading is for night call image reads. Night call teleradiology is happening even in large metro areas in the US, but I think it is usually smaller group practices that are using them. The reason is that if you do a lot of imaging at night, you might as well be awake, do the reads, and collect. However for small groups, where they are only called a few times, they are willing to give up the revenues from night imaging in order to not be disturbed. The nighthawks suck in consults from a bunch of group practices, so it is cost-effective for them to be awake all night (or day in Australia!!). The night reads are often "wet" reads, to be reviewed in the am; however, the other option is for them to be final reads, the nighthawk agency has to have liability etc in the US.

Here in Ontario, we are starting to use teleimaging to allow specialty consults to remote areas (stroke CT read by a BC neuroradiologist by telerads for rural areas).

I think the thing to keep in mind is that remote reading may fill a gap in services, but it is not poised to drive down the cost of image reading.

What may drive down the cost of imaging physician services is if NP / RPA type entities start to invade radiology like they are doing in medicine and surgery.

 

[Thewonderer]

1) I understand the need for, say, IM or sugery docs to trust the reads by the radiologists. However, a lot of times clinical decisions are made by these docs based on radiologist's official reports whom they read on the browers. During those times, the IM or surgery docs do not even bother to walk down to radiology, sit beside the radiologists and have those radiologists go over the films with them. And if the foreign radiologists are sufficiently trained and can read films consistently over time, I don't see why they cannot be trusted. After all, many countries' education systems are advanced enough to provide the brain power necessary. If high-quality software engineers can be found elsewhere, I don't see why high-quality radiologists cannot.

2) regarding malpractice and legal issue, I am sure if there is money to be made (which will be plenty on the parts of the hospital and the insurance companies when they can outsource the film to other radiologists in other countries), insurance companies WILL come up with a way of covering the malpractice behind the reading of these films.

3) I do not see why radiologists' compensation will not go down in near future. If HMO's or other forces can cut the reimbursements for general surgery by slashing the money paid for each procedure, they will do the same to radiologists for each film read in very foreseeable future. I just do not see how the high salaries demanded by radiologists will be able to sustain itself for that long.

4) Lastly, all specialities come in cycles. A few years ago, FMGs are common place in radiology, but now it is so competitive that only American grads have the best chance of matching into ONE program. But again, there might be one day when radiology become non-competitive again. Ultimately, one needs to choose a profession based on interest and not the "perceived" financial and lifestyle gains because those can change really fast.

 

[eddieberetta]

1) If high-quality software engineers can be found elsewhere, I don't see why high-quality radiologists cannot.

This applies to all medical specialties.

2) regarding malpractice and legal issue, I am sure if there is money to be made (which will be plenty on the parts of the hospital and the insurance companies when they can outsource the film to other radiologists in other countries), insurance companies WILL come up with a way of covering the malpractice behind the reading of these films.

This will mitigate against the cost savings, especially because the foreign-based radiologists will need to be ABR/US credentialled. In addition, local radiologists will still be needed for a number of reasons I have outlined above.

3) I do not see why radiologists' compensation will not go down in near future. If HMO's or other forces can cut the reimbursements for general surgery by slashing the money paid for each procedure, they will do the same to radiologists for each film read in very foreseeable future.


This is a separate issue. Looking back, radiology has always been an above-average specialty, but you are right that the extent of this can change. I will add that studies have shown that the the high salaries in rads are due to higher productivity per radiologist despite decreasing unit reimbursement.

4) Lastly, all specialities come in cycles. A few years ago, FMGs are common place in radiology, but now it is so competitive that only American grads have the best chance of matching into ONE program. But again, there might be one day when radiology become non-competitive again. Ultimately, one needs to choose a profession based on interest and not the "perceived" financial and lifestyle gains because those can change really fast.

I agree!!! I love radiology and I think it is the coolest specialty in medicine. Picking a specialty on the basis of interest is the only surefire way to avoid disappointment.

 

[eddieberetta]

Originally posted by eddieberetta
1) If high-quality software engineers can be found elsewhere, I don't see why high-quality radiologists cannot.

This applies to all medical specialties.

2) regarding malpractice and legal issue, I am sure if there is money to be made (which will be plenty on the parts of the hospital and the insurance companies when they can outsource the film to other radiologists in other countries), insurance companies WILL come up with a way of covering the malpractice behind the reading of these films.

This will mitigate against the cost savings, especially because the foreign-based radiologists will need to be ABR/US credentialled. In addition, local radiologists will still be needed for a number of reasons I have outlined above.

3) I do not see why radiologists' compensation will not go down in near future. If HMO's or other forces can cut the reimbursements for general surgery by slashing the money paid for each procedure, they will do the same to radiologists for each film read in very foreseeable future.


This is a separate issue. Looking back, radiology has always been an above-average specialty, but you are right that the extent of this can change. I will add that studies have shown that the the high salaries in rads are due to higher productivity per radiologist despite decreasing unit reimbursement -- so the situation is not that different from surgery. However, technology/PACS/workflow improvements have kept radiologists on the winning side so far...

4) Lastly, all specialities come in cycles. A few years ago, FMGs are common place in radiology, but now it is so competitive that only American grads have the best chance of matching into ONE program. But again, there might be one day when radiology become non-competitive again. Ultimately, one needs to choose a profession based on interest and not the "perceived" financial and lifestyle gains because those can change really fast.

I agree!!! I love radiology and I think it is the coolest specialty in medicine. Picking a specialty on the basis of interest is the only surefire way to avoid disappointment.

It is important to note that radiology is the most rapidly changing area in medicine. American (and Canadian hehe) radiologists are on the cutting edge of a rapidly advancing specialty. The world looks to us for leadership both from a clinical and a technological standpoint. There will always be more advanced imaging on the horizon, and we are the ones being these innovations into clinical practice.

 

[deleted77919]

I think you guys are missing a point when it comes to this subject. what happens when a computer makes a mistake or breaks down at the most critical moment.

What happens when the one radiologist on staff in a small hospital keels over from a massive MI in the middle of reading a critical film? You get someone else to do it. Same here, pass the image to another computer. Redundancy is key.

Just too funny not to revive. I especially like the T3 comments.

 

[arash_aryamanes]

please give any link to these news
American Board of Radiology is considering a move to let foreign docs train to be ABR certified overseas

 

[Jiminy Cricket]

This is what I have been told is a risk of the future of radiology by some people. Can anyone shed some light on this? I enjoy the field, but I'm concerned by the advancement of technology.....could this be a problem?

No, bc u cant sue machines.

If tech advanced, radiologists would own hundreds of machines. u might see a decrease in salaries for a while, until enough programs shut down to control supply.

u guys are going iv into every field possible. u'll be more than fine in the future....or until other fields smarten up and start adding imagine fellowships to the fellowships that already exist.

 

[Quite_Simply]

Seriously, the implications of a computer reading radiographs, certainly not in our lifetimes. A damn computer can't even read an EKG tracing correctly much less an MRI. Now maybe the AI could give you the top ten ddx based on crude pattern recognition, but even that probably wouldn't happen in the next 20 years. IMHO I would embrace the new technology especially if it makes our job easier, more efficient, and more accurate. Trusting ONLY a computer to make a dx is absurd.

Outsourcing, hell why not outsource a clinic visit, just turn on the old web cam and hire a temp to do a crude PE. These are certanily not issues we have to worry about in our lifetime.

 

[arash_aryamanes]

please give any link to these news
American Board of Radiology is considering a move to let foreign docs train to be ABR certified overseas

 

[jon62781]

This is the funniest forum I've read yet. If computers start to take over my job, you better believe I'm going to have gallons of water and giant sledge hammer around to secure my job.

(Well that is if they don't consider it murder to kill a machine!)

Haven't you guys seen "The Matrix"???

Ultimately we are just jacked into some body energy draining facility pretending to be reading X-Rays.....

THE MACHINES HAVE ALREADY WON!!!!

Where's Keanu when we need him??

 

[cdql]

Whoa

 

[normalwishart]

My opinion: AI will not take over Radiology from one to the next, but, rather, computers will at first work with radiologists and then slowly take over more tasks which they are able todo more efficiently. At first AI programs will make their impact in small domains (such as now in mamorgaphy and chest CT scans) where the images have rather constrained statistics. Right now companies like R2 and such suggest the computer will act as a second reader, working in conjuction with radiologists. But as these programs become more efficient, they will become more reliable and ultimately supplant radiologists (again only in certain domains). A general-purpose AI reader is far off in the future, maybe 30-40 years.

my 2 cents ...

 

[cliffhanger]

IMHO, computer aided detection will be helpful in many appications, however, I think there are several factors that will prevent AI from becoming dominant for many, many years (if ever):

1. Will AI be able to keep up with the latest studies and guidelines? I don't think it would be easy to reconfigure a program to accomodate major changes in clinical criteria, esp. changes in visual criteria. This makes the application outdated as soon as the next issue of Radiographics hits the shelf.

2. Improvements in image quality and resolution (which happen frequently!) would require major recalculation of the programming (and presumably more complex programming to deal with the exponential increase in data). For instance, improved MR resolution would require the radiologist's intuition and judgment in determing whether a lesion (previously undetectable at lower res.) is clinically significant until such time that the appropriate evidence based medicine studies have been completed and incorporated into the updated AI programming. Otherwise, the computer will significantly over/undercall the findings.

How long has voice recognition been around? As I'm sure many of us can attest to, voice recognition is no where near as good as our own ears. I'm sure it will get better... but pictures are even more complex, right?

 

[spyyder]

Computer won't replace radiology, other fields will. There isn't anything a radiologist does that cannot be done by any other respective field with additional training. Radiologists know this, thats why they keep coming up with ways to use imaging to encroach on other fields. The field is "sideline" medicine. Cards kicked'em to the curb, GI is about to do it, oncologist are thinking about it, and any field that wants their hands on lucrative imaging will do it too. Rads don't control patients. Forget teleradiology, its you fellow doctor you need to watch out for.

my 2 cents.

 

[f_w]

my 2 cents.

And indeed not worth much more.

Your comments have been made:
- in the 30s
- the 50s
- the 90s
and today, and they are still wrong.
And still, the volume of imaging (not the percentage) done by radiologists keeps on growing. Yes, ED docs think they can read their own x-rays, in reality the proportion of ED docs that actually read their own imaging has decreased over the years.

The problem is not that other specialists can read their own imaging, the problem is the self-referral that goes along with it. Insurers have identified self-referred imaging by cardiologists as the #1 driver of imaging cost in medicine and are looking into ways to cut that bonanza off (just got a a notification from one of our payors that they won't pay for in-office cardiac imaging anymore. you can still do the study, they just won't pay for it if it is not done in an IDTF or hospital).

Most specialties just want the cash that comes with the technical component of imaging studies, they don't want the liability that comes with actually putting your name under the interpretation. Most oncs who own imaging equipment contract with radiology groups for the interpretation of the studies, most cardio groups still contract a radiologist to overread their CTAs.

 

[spyyder]

And indeed not worth much more.

Your comments have been made:
- in the 30s
- the 50s
- the 90s
and today, and they are still wrong.
And still, the volume of imaging (not the percentage) done by radiologists keeps on growing. Yes, ED docs think they can read their own x-rays, in reality the proportion of ED docs that actually read their own imaging has decreased over the years.

The problem is not that other specialists can read their own imaging, the problem is the self-referral that goes along with it. Insurers have identified self-referred imaging by cardiologists as the #1 driver of imaging cost in medicine and are looking into ways to cut that bonanza off (just got a a notification from one of our payors that they won't pay for in-office cardiac imaging anymore. you can still do the study, they just won't pay for it if it is not done in an IDTF or hospital).

Most specialties just want the cash that comes with the technical component of imaging studies, they don't want the liability that comes with actually putting your name under the interpretation. Most oncs who own imaging equipment contract with radiology groups for the interpretation of the studies, most cardio groups still contract a radiologist to overread their CTAs.

No need to get you panties in a bunch. New modalities are the only reason you guys are still around. You can thank engineers for that, not radiologists. So you keep making yourselves useful again because other docs don't want use them when they first come out. X-ray, MRI, CT to fit your mentioned time frames. Once they hit mainstream, and their use finally revealed, other docs will take it. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Just sayin.

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

No need to get you panties in a bunch. New modalities are the only reason you guys are still around. You can thank engineers for that, not radiologists. So you keep making yourselves useful again because other docs don't want use them when they first come out. X-ray, MRI, CT to fit your mentioned time frames. Once they hit mainstream, and their use finally revealed, other docs will take it. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Just sayin.

An obviously poorly informed opinion. Its not only new modalities, its the use of these modalities that is advancing, and that research is done by radiologists. Much of the advances in imaging are perfomred with radiologists and engineers working together (I can say this coming from a place that invented digital subtraction angiography, TRICKS (time resolved) mr angiography, and multiple other MR sequences.).

Secondly, who is going to read a CT abdomen. A GI doc, who knows nothing of the kidneys, aorta, or even what an appendicitis looks like. A nephrologist for the kidneys? A vascular surgeon for the arterial system. A surgeon for the appendicitis, SBO, and gastric tumor? A pulmonologist for the base of the lungs? A spine specialist for the spine? Thats a lot of people on call for a routine appy case from the ED. If you think neurologists are going to be covering hospital ERs for the innumerable negative head CTs, you're wrong.

I could go on and on about how ill informed your statements are. I'll stop now. I do agree that other physicians will be our biggest competition. However, as mentioned above, this will be mainly for the technical component, which is already happening.

 

[hans19]

An obviously poorly informed opinion...

I could go on and on about how ill informed your statements are. I'll stop now. I do agree that other physicians will be our biggest competition. However, as mentioned above, this will be mainly for the technical component, which is already happening.

Give the guy a break...







Can't a TROLL just be a TROLL? Let him TROLL in peace.

 

[f_w]

New modalities are the only reason you guys are still around.

Sure, as you have so astutely observed, clinicians have all but taken over the classic radiology studies such as barium work and plain radiographs.. Every day, I have people fighthing to carve the mammographies out of our hospital contract

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Just sayin.

What helps me sleep at night are the numerous patients in the course of a regular week in whose care I have made a difference.

(if I was so obsolete, I don't think my referrers would come with a list of cases to look at after my hospital is covered by a locums for a week. but I guess that is the difference between living in the real world vs whatever lala-land you seem to exist in)

 

[Sancho]

why stop with radiology? and surely it should start with a million other jobs.
i bet a computer wouldn't have forgot to give me my fries today at wendy's-its a simple combo order, burger fries and drink how can you forget the fries?
and why do we need to pay all these office people who fart around sending ******ed chain emails to each other?
i have a dream...where we're all on Soma or some other perfect drug
and quantum computers do all the work
including creating virtual reality concubines who attend to the most basic of needs like in the beginning of "coming to america"

 

[m3unsure]

Radiology, Ortho, Anesthesia....everything considered good paying now will probably end up with salaries starting to descend towards primary care.

Not saying that radiology is not useful, but the whole paid for performance thing will certainly limit how many studies/procedures in general will be done. We'll just find out if it is for the better or for the worse.

Make sure everyone lobbies HARD as residents and medical students. You can't protect your jobs and autonomy if you stay silent.

Stop Medicare payment cuts in July. Instead, make the government ration care to people who aren't crackheads.

 

[Mariah246]

Radiology, Ortho, Anesthesia....everything considered good paying now will probably end up with salaries starting to descend towards primary care.

Not saying that radiology is not useful, but the whole paid for performance thing will certainly limit how many studies/procedures in general will be done. We'll just find out if it is for the better or for the worse.

Make sure everyone lobbies HARD as residents and medical students. You can't protect your jobs and autonomy if you stay silent.

Stop Medicare payment cuts in July. Instead, make the government ration care to people who aren't crackheads.

Guess everyone will end up in Plastics then. And not the reconstruction side. Medicare isn't paying for those procedures. 😀

 

[FunkyR]

I attended a computer assisted radiology and surgery conference last year in Osaka.

We are MILES away from a fully automated computer being able to issue diagnoses.

The only useful computer aided detection device being used at the moment picks up 99% of microcalcs in digital mammography.

 

[f_w]

IThe only useful computer aided detection device being used at the moment picks up 99% of microcalcs in digital mammography.

It also picks up plenty of clearly benign microcalcs such as vascular calcs. At this point, it can't compare those microcalcs to the last 10 years of prior mammos and determine that they haven't changed since 1997 and are probably not going to kill aunti Esther.

Love my CAD system, but the people who think that CAD will replace a radiologist probably also think that surgeons will be replaced by a better engineered scalpel.