## 7 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Pre-Treatment** \\ **Mean** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Post-Treatment** \\ **Mean** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **Difference** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Standard** \\ **Error (SE)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Confidence** \\ **Interval** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **t-Value** \\ **(df = 49)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Cohen’s d** \\ \hline Wrinkles * & 52.14 & 59.52 & \(-7.38\) & 0.77 & \begin{tabular}{c} (\(-8.928\), \\ \(-5.832\)) \\ \end{tabular} & \(-9.581\) & 5.447 \\ \hline Textures * & 42.7 & 46.16 & \(-3.46\) & 0.67 & \begin{tabular}{c} (\(-4.806\), \\ \(-2.114\)) \\ \end{tabular} & \(-5.167\) & 4.735 \\ \hline Spots * & 52.88 & 55.8 & \(-2.92\) & 0.153 & \begin{tabular}{c} (\(-3.228\), \\ \(-2.612\)) \\ \end{tabular} & \(-19.031\) & 1.085 \\ \hline UV Spots * & 55.34 & 58.32 & \(-2.98\) & 0.182 & \begin{tabular}{c} (\(-3.345\), \\ \(-2.615\)) \\ \end{tabular} & \(-16.391\) & 1.286 \\ \hline Brown Spots * & 52.82 & 55.98 & \(-3.16\) & 0.152 & \begin{tabular}{c} (\(-3.466\), \\ \(-2.854\)) \\ \end{tabular} & \(-20.768\) & 1.076 \\ \hline Pores & 53.88 & 57.14 & \(-3.26\) & 0.827 & \begin{tabular}{c} (\(-4.923\), \\ \(-1.597\)) \\ \end{tabular} & \(-3.94\) & 5.851 \\ \hline Red Areas * & 56.96 & 60.6 & \(-3.64\) & 0.193 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} (\(-4.028\), \\ \(-3.252\)) \\ \end{tabular} & \(-18.833\) & 1.367 \\ \hline Porphyrins * & 50.56 & 54.26 & \(-3.7\) & 0.342 &
\begin{tabular}{c} (\(-4.387\), \\ \(-3.013\)) \\ \end{tabular} & \(-10.82\) & 2.418 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Parameters marked with an asterisk (*) indicate statistically significant differences at \(p<0.05\) after treatment compared to baseline.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Effectiveness of “More Young” treatment on skin parameters: pre- and post-treatment comparison. Afterwards, we investigated the differences in efficacy between the 7D and More Young Cosmetic devices. Initially, we evaluated whether discrepancies existed in the baseline skin parameters between the 7D and More Young cohorts, and statistical analysis displayed that there were no diversities between the two cohorts in any of the fourteen baseline skin parameters (Table 3). Subsequently, we defined the degree of improvement (DOI) of each skin parameter as the value of the skin parameter post-treatment minus the value of the skin parameter pre-treatment, which can be formulated as DOI = DOI = Value post-treatment \(-\) Value pre-treatment. The DOI of each skin parameter for the two cohorts was calculated separately, and independent \(t\)-tests were performed to assess the diversities in the DOI of the skin parameters between the two cohorts. The improvement in wrinkles was significantly greater in the More Young cohort compared to the 7D cohort (\(\Delta\)Mean = 3.04, SE = 0.951, 95% CI [1.15, 4.93], t(49) = 3.197, \(p\) = 0.002, Cohen's d = 0.639), indicating a clear advantage for More Young in reducing wrinkle severity. In terms of skin texture, the More Young cohort exhibited a greater reduction compared to the 7D cohort (\(\Delta\)Mean = \(-\)1.46, SE = 0.776, 95% CI [\(-\)3.01, 0.08], t(49) = \(-\)1.881, \(p\) = 0.063). The \(p\)-value for texture is 0.063, which does not reach the conventional threshold for statistical significance (\(p\) > 0.05). Therefore, no definitive conclusion regarding superiority between the cohorts can be drawn for texture. The improvement in pore size was also notably more pronounced in the More Young cohort compared to the 7D cohort (\(\Delta\)Mean = \(-\)10.46, SE = 1.225, 95% CI [\(-\)12.89, \(-\)8.03], t(49) = \(-\)8.538, \(p\) < 0.001, Cohen's d = \(-\)1.708), indicating a significant effect favoring the More Young treatment. These comparative outcomes are visually represented in Figure 17, which displays the clustered boxplot of the degree of improvement for More Young versus 7D.