Future of pathology (technology-wise)

[conveyor_belt]

I see a lot of negativity about starting a career in pathology on these forums, and a lot of it seems to revolve around the financial aspects of the US healthcare system. I'm a fresh anatomic pathology resident in an EU country and I'm concerned whether I made a mistake entering path. However, the situation in my country is that the hospital putting you through residency will keep you as an attending 100%. Healthcare is mostly state-owned and hospitals (and the health ministry) are run by MDs, so the whole business aspect of maximizing profit is not as pronounced as in the US. Salaries in the public healthcare system are also not determined by volume of patients/procedures/RVUs, but instead all specialties have the same base salary that increases depending on professional risks (exposure to pathogens, chemicals, radiation, OR, closed psych ward, etc.) and hours worked.

So it's guaranteed that I will land a job post-residency and earn decent money. My worries are in the threat of advancing technologies like AI/ML software, molecular, liquid biopsies, etc. Is there a realistic possibility of these advancements eliminating pathology in the next 40 years? Or massively reducing the number of pathologists needed? Is it expected that they'll add new roles and jobs for pathologists instead? Is it recommendable to enter the field if this is my only concern?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Spaziergängerin]

I think it will add new specialties to pathology. Just as robotics in surgery still today needs a surgeon, AI and liquid biopsies in pathology will need clinical pathologists. My recommendation would be to make sure to get some experience in the regulatory and CP side of path to stay competitive.

 

[conveyor_belt]

I think it will add new specialties to pathology. Just as robotics in surgery still today needs a surgeon, AI and liquid biopsies in pathology will need clinical pathologists. My recommendation would be to make sure to get some experience in the regulatory and CP side of path to stay competitive.

Thing is, CP doesn't exist in my country. We have surgical pathology, forensic and cytology. Transfusion and microbiology are considered to be separate specialties unaffiliated with pathology while biochem and hemo labs are run by non-MD PhDs.

 

[Med Director New England]

AI / dig path Won’t eliminate the need for the human eye but will make us faster for sure.

 

[allopathdoc]

AI is not even close to replacing anything doctors do. Checkout all the references in this great article. Opinion | In the Battle With Robots, Human Workers Are Winning

 

[gbwillner]

As a Molecular Pathologist I can assure you that there will be new opportunities for AP pathologists to have a more central role in patient care, provided we do our part to show our relevance and importance.

 

[ScubaV]

I saw this comment somewhere in regards to VR tech and what Meta is trying to do. I think the same applies to AI:

The technology is about 80% of the way there, but that last 20% gap is going to be difficult to bridge.

Whenever it is ready or close enough, I think the rollout in the medical world will be slower than other sectors.

 

[Spaziergängerin]

Thing is, CP doesn't exist in my country. We have surgical pathology, forensic and cytology. Transfusion and microbiology are considered to be separate specialties unaffiliated with pathology while biochem and hemo labs are run by non-MD PhDs.

I would vote cytology then. It's already been ahead of the tech curve in path so adoption of new methods are part of the culture and you will be prepared for any changes down the road.

 

[Pathdocmd]

The AI can't talk about the complexity and nuance of a hard case with the oncologist.