3F Wrinkle Study: Average vs Maximum

IN BRIEF

The domestic four-week 3F wrinkle study involved 20 women, with an average age of 50 years.
Average changes were 18.5% for under-eye wrinkles, 13.7% for nasolabial folds and 15.5% for neck wrinkles.
An individual maximum describes one participant’s measured change, not the outcome everyone should expect.

Which number describes the group?

The average describes the group; the maximum describes the strongest individual response for a particular measurement. — A text illustration of this section’s reading rule, not a test photograph.

Group meanIndividual maximum

Under-eye

18.5%

36.4%

Nasolabial

13.7%

43.8%

Neck

15.5%

29.2%

20 women · mean age 50 · ProBM PM-23A29-WR008

Explanatory diagram. Not a test photograph or a plot of individual results. Measurements describe the tested group under the stated conditions.

The average describes the group; the maximum describes the strongest individual response for a particular measurement. That distinction belongs beside the percentage, not in a footnote far below it. Neither number predicts exactly what your own skin will look like after using a bottle.

In the domestic ProBM report PM-23A29-WR008, 20 women used the tested 3F product for four weeks. The participants’ average age was 50 years. The reported mean changes were 18.5% for the under-eye measurement, 13.7% for nasolabial folds and 15.5% for the neck measurement.

These are the group means rounded to one decimal place. These are three separate measured outcomes. They should not be added together to create a total wrinkle-improvement percentage, and a neck result should not be relabeled as an eye-area result.

Why is the larger percentage also in the report?

The larger percentage records an individual maximum within the tested group. The corresponding maxima were 36.4% for the under-eye measurement, 43.8% for nasolabial folds and 29.2% for the neck measurement. They are not automatically invalid because they exceed the means.

They become misleading when presented without their individual-result label. “Nasolabial folds: 43.8% improvement” sounds like a usual outcome. “Maximum individual change among 20 participants: 43.8%; group average: 13.7%” tells a considerably more complete story.

The person with the highest eye-area response does not have to be the person with the highest nasolabial response. Selecting the best number for every endpoint can produce a picture that no single participant actually experienced.

Average

A summary of the measured changes across the study group, with the group size and study conditions attached.

Individual maximum

The highest recorded change for that endpoint in that group. It is a best observed result, not a personal forecast.

What does the percentage actually compare?

The percentage describes change against the study’s specified starting measurement. It is not the percentage of participants who became wrinkle-free, and it does not mean that the skin contains that much more collagen. The measurement and the denominator matter.

A consumer questionnaire answers a different question. Someone may feel their skin looks smoother, while an instrument measures a defined surface feature. Both can be useful, but agreement with a survey statement cannot replace the numerical endpoint from the report.

The same applies to safety questionnaires. A favorable response about comfort is not a measured wrinkle change. Keeping these categories separate prevents one enthusiastic number from doing the work of several different tests.

What can this study not promise?

The study cannot promise that every user will reproduce the average or the maximum. — A text illustration of this section’s reading rule, not a test photograph.

Keep the evidence in its own lane

A group result is not a guarantee for an individual.

A measurement applies to its stated sample, conditions and period.

A separate-product study is not a test of a combined routine.

Explanatory diagram. Not a test photograph or a plot of individual results. Measurements describe the tested group under the stated conditions.

The study cannot promise that every user will reproduce the average or the maximum. It describes a small, specified group, the tested product and a four-week observation period. Individual skin condition, tolerance and use patterns can differ.

It is also not a head-to-head comparison with another brand, a medical procedure or a different narinfla product. Without that comparison in the protocol, a larger percentage elsewhere does not establish which product is better.

A separate elasticity result belongs to its own report and tested sample. It should not be attached to the ProBM wrinkle study as if all the percentages came from the same measurement session or the same verified retail formulation.

How should you use these numbers when choosing?

Use the averages to understand the scale of the observed group result, then read the conditions before deciding whether the study addresses your question. For 3F, that means a four-week wrinkle study rather than a promise of overnight lifting.

The bottle’s ingredient list and the test report answer different questions too. The domestic 50 ml 3F formula contains EGF, FGF, IGF and 11 peptides, but the finished-product result cannot be assigned to one ingredient simply because that ingredient appears on the label.

Our preference is straightforward: publish the average prominently, label any maximum honestly and make the institution, participant count and duration easy to find. Clearer numbers are more useful than larger numbers.

FAQ

Questions & answers

Is 43.8% a false number?

It is the rounded individual maximum for the nasolabial endpoint in the domestic study. It should be labeled as such, with the 13.7% group average and the study conditions beside it.

Does 13.7% mean only 13.7% of participants benefited?

No. It is an average percentage change in the specified nasolabial measurement, not a responder rate or a count of people.

Should the three wrinkle percentages be added together?

No. Under-eye, nasolabial and neck measurements are separate outcomes. Adding their percentages does not produce a defined total wrinkle-improvement score.

Sources and scope

ProBM domestic 3F wrinkle study, 2023PM-23A29-WR008
Brand-held human application report: 20 women, average age 50 years, four weeks; under-eye, nasolabial and neck outcomes. Full report is not publicly linked here.
Technical document on cosmetic claims, Claims Sub-Working Group, 3 July 2017, Annexes I–II
Non-binding best-practice guidance on relevant evidence, product identity, study conditions and avoiding exaggerated interpretations; not a narinfla trial or European Commission legal ruling.
narinfla official English product information
Official brand hub; consult the corrected version for product-specific information. Not a public archive of the full clinical reports.

Reading the 3F numbers: the average is not the best individual result