The framework follows the evidence.
TIGEE does not add a body part to the score simply because it seems visually important. A construct has to survive a sequence: it must be measurable, supported by relevant research, separable from variables already scored, and reproducible from the evidence quality TPS actually receives.
Breast / upper-body candidate constructs.
Breast Projection Proportion
Projection emerges repeatedly as a meaningful breast-shape variable and has been carried from preference work into real-patient validation.
Strong candidateBreast Width : Shoulder Width
Tests whether breast width is proportionate to the upper-body frame rather than rewarding absolute breast size.
Strong candidateBreast Width : Upper-Buttock Width
A direct upper-to-lower relationship and one of the clearest bridges between breast aesthetics research and TPS whole-body proportion.
Strong candidateLower-Pole Shape
Mallucci morphology and Sandberg factor-priority research independently elevate lower-pole geometry as a meaningful aesthetic feature.
Strong candidateUpper Pole + Breast Height
Supported, but more context-sensitive. Different populations and evaluator groups do not always prefer the same superior contour.
Supported / contextualNipple–Areola Position
Position and direction are measurable and relevant, but may be secondary to global breast geometry and vary by study design.
Supported / secondaryDifferent ratios answer different questions.
| Metric | What it actually describes | Current interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Mallucci U:L 45:55 | Vertical upper- versus lower-pole height around the nipple meridian in standardized three-quarter profile. | Important morphology reference; not a universal 10/10 target. |
| Lee & Ock / Kelly BWSR | Breast width relative to shoulder width. | Body-integration variable; exact preferred value changes by sample/method. |
| Lee & Ock / Kelly BWBR | Breast width relative to upper-buttock width. | Promising whole-body integration variable. |
| Projection proportion | Anterior breast projection normalized to defined breast geometry. | One of the strongest current candidate constructs. |
What TPS 2.0 may keep, change, add, or exclude.
| Decision | Constructs | Why |
|---|---|---|
| KEEP | WHC, glute projection, glute shape, glute-thigh transition, leg proportionality | Still relevant static morphology constructs. |
| EXPAND | Upper–Lower Balance | Currently under-resolves upper-torso morphology compared with the lower body. |
| NEW CANDIDATES | Breast projection, body-relative width, pole geometry, breast height / placement | Evidence is strong enough for formal data collection, not yet for final weighting. |
| EXCLUDE | Gait, gaze attention, surgery status, skin texture, general attractiveness | Interesting aesthetics research, but outside a static proportional-morphology score or too indirect for weighting. |
Three serious ways forward.
Expand ULB
Keep six domains and rebuild Upper–Lower Balance so it includes measurable breast/body integration.
Under reviewAdd Breast / Torso Morphology
Create a dedicated morphology domain while preserving ULB as the integration layer. Requires strong anti-double-counting rules.
Under reviewWhole-Body Rebuild
Redesign the system from the whole body outward instead of bolting upper-body metrics onto a framework that began as lower-body / BBL analysis.
Under reviewNo weights until constructs settle.
We will not choose 10%, 15%, or 20% first and justify it later. Constructs come first, weights second, model re-scoring last.
TIGEE methodIf TPS changes, every eligible score changes with it.
Legacy evidence that cannot support a new required construct is marked reassessment required. TIGEE does not fabricate missing measurements and does not silently convert old scores.
Core sources currently informing this track.
Natural-breast morphology; 45:55 pole relationship, nipple angulation, upper-pole contour, and lower-pole convexity, with explicit cultural and photographic limitations.
Body-relative landmark and ratio framework linking the breast to shoulders, buttocks, torso height, IMF, and projection.
Preference testing and subsequent validation of projection proportion, breast-to-shoulder width, breast-to-upper-buttock width, and nipple direction.
3D factor-priority work that elevated lower-pole shape, upper-pole shape, and breast height above several other variables in its sample.
Controlled NAC-position preference research supporting position as a distinct variable from nipple direction.
Real-patient 2D/3D analysis adding independent support for projected contour, upper-pole fullness, and the limits of raw size as a stand-alone target.
Reinforces why population and cultural context are documented rather than used as hidden scoring modifiers or universalized from one cohort.
Full-text acquisition and source integration continue. Research findings remain separate from proprietary TPS weights until a scoring revision is formally locked.