Automation index
How much of a Epidemiologist’s job can AI already do?
A model and a mapped outbreak come earlier. Calling the measure and getting people to follow it do not.
This percentage does not predict how many people will lose their jobs.
Task comparison
IS WORK OVER?
Epidemiologist
31%
AI can already do 31% of this job.
#34 / 643
View rankingEpidemiologist
Where the time goes
Task weights are our estimates based on O*NET frequency data, not time shares published by O*NET.
The time saving for each task is estimated separately.
| Task | Share | AI | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
Surveillance, rates and the outbreak on the map.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 52% | +9.4 |
Studies, bias and the report for public health.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 48% | +7.7 |
Surveys, contacts and the case interview.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 28% | +4.5 |
Committee, the unpopular measure and the press.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 18% | +3.2 |
Field, the care-home outbreak and dirty data.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 22% | +3.5 |
Judgement, uncertainty and signing the alert.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 14% | +2.2 |
| Total | 100% | 31% |
Modelled workweek: 100% · Public evidence: 0% · Estimate: 100% · Confidence: Low
Skills and activities
- watch outbreaks
- compute rates
- epi studies
- case interviews
- map epidemics
- public-health measures
- contact tracing
- health alerts
Sources for this job· O*NET 19-1041.00· ESCO/ISCO 2263
IS WORK OVER?
Clinical research associate
27%
#172 / 643
View rankingClinical research associate
Where the time goes
Task weights are our estimates based on O*NET frequency data, not time shares published by O*NET.
The time saving for each task is estimated separately.
| Task | Share | AI | Points |
|---|---|---|---|
Protocol, CRF and the monitoring visit.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 48% | +8.6 |
Source, the gap and the one that does not fit.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 40% | +6.4 |
Adverse event, the deadline and not delaying.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 22% | +3.5 |
Consent, the signature and the one who did not understand.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 28% | +4.5 |
The sponsor, the audit and not dressing the figure.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 14% | +2.5 |
Audit, and not leaving a made-up figure.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 12% | +1.9 |
| Total | 100% | 27% |
Modelled workweek: 100% · Public evidence: 0% · Estimate: 100% · Confidence: Low
Skills and activities
- CRF
- monitoring
- adverse events
- informed consent
- source data
- trial audits
- clinical protocols
- site visits
Sources for this job· O*NET 11-9121.00· ESCO/ISCO 2131