Sholl analysis

Sholl analysis summarizes the radial arrangement of a traced structure by counting its intersections with concentric Euclidean circles around a chosen center. The resulting Sholl profile reports how the count changes with radius. A computational workflow must specify the center, spatial calibration, sampled radii and the convention used to identify distinct intersections. The software documentation distinguishes analysis of segmented images from analysis of reconstructed tracings.^[ref]

For an original center-choice example, take the straight segment $\Gamma =\{(x,0):0\le x\le 2\}$. With center $(0,0)$, a circle of radius $r$ meets the segment once for $0<r\le 2$. With center $(1,0)$, it meets the same segment twice for $0<r\le 1$ and not at all for $r>1$. At $r=0.75$, therefore, the two center choices give counts 1 and 2, although the traced object has not changed. The center is part of the measurement definition.

For binary images, the foreground also needs an explicit meaning. The SNT documentation treats zero-valued pixels as background independently of the displayed lookup table and illustrates how an inverted segmentation can make the program sample background instead of structure.^[ref] Record the foreground-background polarity and radial sampling interval with the result.

The radial summary is useful for comparing where intersections occur, but a Sholl profile does not determine rooted tree topology. A fitted curve, sampled count sequence and complete ideal Sholl profile are different data objects; none should be silently substituted for another.

The radial sampling interval $\Delta r$ is the separation between consecutive radii at which a radial measurement is made. For Sholl analysis, it determines the spacing of concentric Euclidean circles used to sample intersection counts about a fixed center. The documentation distinguishes this step from the starting and ending radii.^[ref]

For constant positive spacing, the sampling grid iswhere $R$ is the chosen upper radius. For $r_{\mathrm{start}}=1$, $\Delta r=1$ and $R=4.4$, the sampled radii are 1, 2, 3 and 4. The upper bound 4.4 is not itself sampled. The software documentation explicitly notes this endpoint issue when the step does not divide the difference between ending and starting radii.^[ref]

A purely geometric example shows what coarse spacing can miss. Begin with a straight line segment from $(0,0)$ to $(4,0)$ and use the origin as center. Add a short branch from $(2.1,0)$ to $(2.4,0.7)$. Its distance from the center increases continuously from $2.1$ to $2.5$, since $2.4^2+0.7^2=2.5^2$. Counting shared endpoints only once, the added branch contributes one extra distinct intersection exactly forAt radii 1, 2, 3 and 4, the branched and unbranched traces both give $N(r)=1$. An additional sample at $r=2.25$ instead gives two intersections for the branched trace. The feature exists in the geometric input but falls between the coarse sample radii.

Smaller $\Delta r$ supplies a denser set of probes, while changing $r_{\mathrm{start}}$ shifts their positions. Neither operation restores structure already lost through image segmentation or finite pixel pitch. In particular, closer numerical spacing is distinct from improved physical spatial resolution. Report the center, calibrated distance units, starting radius, interval and sampled endpoint list with a Sholl profile.

The program's zero step setting is a special request for finite image-derived sampling, rather than the literal choice $\Delta r=0$ in the grid above. For image input, the documentation describes voxel-scale increments and a calibration-dependent rule for unequal pixel dimensions.^[ref]

A Sholl profile records intersection counts as a function of distance from a chosen center. For a thin geometric tracing it is an exact counting function; a profile obtained from sampled images also depends on the software's sampling and segmentation conventions.

In an ideal planar model, let $\Gamma$ be a finite embedded rooted tree of line segments in the Euclidean plane with chosen root $c$. Its Sholl profile counts distinct intersections:This is a geometric model for thin tracings; the software documentation separately addresses sampling binary images and handling image segmentation.^[ref]

For an original simple example, take three straight radial segments from the origin, pointing in different directions, with lengths 1, 2 and 4. For radii $r=0.5,1.5,3,5$, the counts are respectively $3,2,1,0$. The segment of length 1 contributes at $r=1$ but not beyond it; record the boundary convention when defining the count. No branch points are needed for this decreasing profile: different lengths of terminal segments already produce it.

The profile retains radial occupancy but discards the angles and the identities of the intersected paths. In particular, a Sholl profile does not determine rooted tree topology. Sampling only a finite list of radii loses still more information; it should not be silently equated with knowledge of the complete continuous-radius counting function.

An original counterexample explains why a Sholl profile does not determine rooted tree topology. Construct two embedded rooted trees whose distance from the root increases along every edge. Both have one initial segment, three branch points of a tree at distances $1,2,3$, and four rooted tree leaves at distance $4$. In tree A the second and third branch points lie on different children of the first; in tree B all three branch points lie along one lineage. Their common profile isAt a branch-point radius the shared endpoint is counted once. This convention also gives equal profiles at all three branch-point radii, not just between them.

The multiset of numbers of branch points of a tree along the four root-to-leaf paths is $\{2,2,2,2\}$ for tree A and $\{1,2,3,3\}$ for tree B. A graph isomorphism preserving the root would preserve those path counts. The different multisets prove that the rooted trees are different despite identical profiles. The radial summary loses connectivity information.