The job of a radiologist is to construct a story that holds water around the diagnosis and communicate that to other specialists, so they can use that to understand the problem at hand.
Concretely, a radiologist may say "there is a lesion compatible with your presumption of diagnosis X, however another neighbouring lesion Y speaks against diagnosis X. In light of patient history, further examination of lesion Y by modality Z is advised". That's the minimum we expect, otherwise we wouldn't need radiologists because many specialists can analyze the images relevant to their specialty themselves.
I don't deny it will be possible to automate in the future, but currently not possible. Radiologists are useful, and their job lies beyond matters of image description.
Concretely, a radiologist may say "there is a lesion compatible with your presumption of diagnosis X, however another neighbouring lesion Y speaks against diagnosis X. In light of patient history, further examination of lesion Y by modality Z is advised". That's the minimum we expect, otherwise we wouldn't need radiologists because many specialists can analyze the images relevant to their specialty themselves.
I don't deny it will be possible to automate in the future, but currently not possible. Radiologists are useful, and their job lies beyond matters of image description.