Automation index
How much of a Pharmacovigilance officer’s job can AI already do?
An ADR case comes earlier. Calling it serious without staying quiet to the regulator do not.
This percentage does not predict how many people will lose their jobs.
Task comparison
IS WORK OVER?
Pharmacovigilance officer
27%
AI can already do 27% of this job.
#186 / 643
View rankingPharmacovigilance officer
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Case, the file and MedDRA.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 48% | +8.6 |
Seriousness, the link and the one that does not fit.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 40% | +6.4 |
File, the AEMPS deadline and not delaying.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 22% | +3.5 |
Signal, the aggregate and not playing it down.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 16% | 28% | +4.5 |
The doctor, the ADR and not arguing the story.EstimateNo public source provides a precise figure. This is our estimate. | 18% | 14% | +2.5 |
If it is serious, call it. And not staying quiet.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
- ADR
- MedDRA
- AEMPS
- safety signals
- seriousness
- causality
- case files
- regulatory deadlines
Sources for this job· O*NET 29-1051.00· ESCO/ISCO 2262
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