I posted the other day about machine learning and radiology. It's the type of job that squarely fits your definition, although things move much more solely in medicine.
It seems risky to lose the human understanding and interpretation of the images. Human augmentation is probably better?
Already people make assumptions because of not understanding constraints in how the underlying tech works (like how FMRI is monitoring changes in blood flow not neural activity directly).
They have been, de facto, replaced by computers, even if the job role still exists.
It's easier to see this if you break down the work not into images but into human-image-minutes. If there are 100 minutes of work, but you can assign the computer 50 of them which it can complete in seconds, the same number of human-image-minutes can be completed as before, but the computer has now taken them away from a human.
Most of the automation work I do in financial services is a 90% automation. This leaves room for more analytical tasks where people can free up time to drive more business decisions and insights.