Back

Impact of Image Bit Depth Reduction on Deep Learning Performance in Chest Radiograph Analysis: A Multi-institutional Study

Takita, H.; Mitsuyama, Y.; Walston, S. L.; Saito, K.; Sugibayashi, T.; Okamoto, M.; Suh, C. H.; Ueda, D.

2026-03-09 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.03.07.26347853 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeMedical imaging typically generates 12- to 16-bit formats, yet conversion to 8-bit is often required. While deep learning has been widely explored in medical imaging, the influence of image bit depth on model performance is not fully understood. This study evaluates the impact of conversion from 16-bit to 8-bit for sex, age, and obesity classification using deep learning. Materials and methodsIn this retrospective, multi-institutional study, we analyzed 100,002 chest radiographs from 48,047 participants across three institutions. Three convolutional neural network architectures (ResNet52, EfficientNetB2, and ConvNeXtSmall) were trained on both 16-bit and 8-bit versions of the images. Model performance was evaluated using internal test datasets, randomly split multiple times, and an external test dataset. Statistical analysis included paired comparisons of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) values, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. ResultsAcross all architectures and classification tasks, differences between 16-bit and 8-bit model performance were minimal (mean differences ranging from -0.218% to 0.184%). Statistical analyses revealed no significant differences in AUC-ROC values between bit depths for any model-task combination (all p-values > 0.05 after Bonferroni correction). Effect sizes were small to moderate (Cohens d ranging from -0.415 to 0.391). ConclusionReducing image bit depth from 16-bit to 8-bit does not significantly impact the performance of deep learning models in chest radiograph analysis. These findings suggest that 8-bit images can be used for deep learning applications in medical imaging without compromising model performance, potentially allowing for more efficient data storage and processing.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.3%
2
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.1%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 4%
12.2%
4
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
5
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.2%
7
Annals of Translational Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.5%
8
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
9
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
10
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
11
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
12
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.2%
13
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
14
IEEE Access
31 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
15
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
16
Biomedical Optics Express
84 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
17
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
18
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
19
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Photoacoustics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
22
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
24
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
25
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
26
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
27
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%