Turn the block you changed into something you can publish.
You already adjusted the programme because of a study. Write that up once, with the paper attached, and it becomes the thing you point people to instead of re-arguing it.
Titrate is pre-launch. What is described here is what it is being built to do, with Jeff Casebolt, PhD.
The central question
Does passing objective return-to-sport (RTS) criteria/test batteries (strength symmetry limb-symmetry indices, hop tests, time-based thresholds, etc.) before returning to sport reduce an athlete's risk of a second ACL injury (graft rupture or contralateral tear)?
- Grindem et al.2016n=106supports
- Kyritsis et al.2016n=158supports
- Webster et al.2019n=—mixed
- Losciale et al.2019n=4 studies po…contradicts
- Zhou et al.2024n=9 studiesmixed
- Paterno et al.2022n=159contradicts
A workbench, not a chatbot.
Nothing here writes a confident paragraph for you to trust. There is no chat window. You keep the judgment; the tool keeps the trail back to the papers. It cannot hallucinate a citation because it does not generate citations at all — a claim points at a paper already sitting in your own library, or it points at nothing.
How it comes together
01
Keep the papers you already read — or start from the topic and keep only what you judge worth keeping. Either way they land as PDFs or citation-only records in a library that is yours.
02
Group them into the topic this piece of work belongs to.
03
Write the position, with each claim carrying its citation.
04
Ship it — a piece you can publish under your own name, where every claim points at the paper it came from.
Why this matters here
The study that changed your mind is in a screenshot, a saved post, or nowhere. When a parent, an athletic director, or a skeptical athlete pushes back, you are reconstructing a rationale from memory — and the reconstruction is never as good as the original thinking.
Titrate is pre-launch.
Join the practitioner waitlistOne email when the first practitioner cohort opens. Nothing else.
