Built by a physician. Backed by the data.

Why a physician built a career-planning tool.

I have spent my professional life inside high-stakes credentialing systems — board exams, residency match, specialty boards, recertification. I know what real evidence looks like. I also watch the AI labor-impact research closely because it affects my own field (radiology AI, primary-care chatbots, clinical-documentation co-pilots) and because the freshest dataset on this topic — the Anthropic Economic Index — gets refreshed quarterly and is licensed CC-BY for anyone willing to do the work.

What I kept finding in the consumer "Will AI take my job?" space was depressing. The dominant site runs on a 2013 paper that pre-dates GPT entirely. The newer ones are quizzes optimized for shareability, not accuracy. None of them cite the Anthropic Index at all. So I built the tool I wanted: a transparent, citable, physician-edited score that takes 30 seconds to get and points to a real next action.

What I bring to it.

• A research habit. Every Anthropic Index release the day it drops. Every Eloundou follow-up paper. Every BLS occupational projection. The score is recomputed quarterly because that's the cadence the underlying data refreshes.
• A career studying for high-stakes exams. Board exams, recertification, specialty boards. I know what real data looks like and what hype looks like. The methodology page exists because the methodology is the product.
• Skin in the game. My name and credential are on every page. Reply to any email I send and the response comes from me, personally, not a support team.

What I do not bring to it.

• Career-coaching credentials. I am a physician, not a career coach. The score is informational. The conversation about what to do with it should happen with someone who knows you — a mentor, a friend in the field, the Pivot Interview.
• A guarantee. No model can predict your specific job in your specific city under your specific employer. The score is one input. Treat it that way.
• A view that AI is bad. The score measures exposure, not desirability. Some exposed roles will become higher-paid as AI raises the value of what only humans can do. Some "resistant" roles will become commoditized. The score is a starting point for thinking, not the conclusion.

The wider project.

The Career Diagnostic is intentionally horizontal — every white-collar profession scored against the same dataset, the same methodology, the same standard of evidence. Vertical depth (Pivot Interviews, named programs, named credentials) sits behind a $29 paywall because it costs real money to run. The free score is permanent and free. The deep work is what funds the project.

How to reach me.

Email is the right channel for substantive arguments about the score, missing data, partnerships, press, or anything else: support@thecareerdiagnostic.com. I read every reply.