Model the sourcing you want students to copy.
Students cite whatever ranks first because they have never seen the alternative done properly. A topic organized in the open is the artifact that shows them.
Titrate is pre-launch. What is described here is what it is being built to do, with Jeff Casebolt, PhD.
The central question
Does power training (high-velocity/explosive-intent resistance training) reduce fall risk — measured either via functional-capacity/balance surrogate outcomes or via actual fall incidence — more effectively than traditional slow-velocity strength training or general exercise in older adults?
- Orr et al.2006n=112supports
- Sherrington et al.2019n=108 RCTssupports
- El Hadouchi et al.2022n=15 trialssupports
- Jiménez-Lupión et al.2023n=12 studiessupports
- Claudino et al.2021n=5 RCTscontradicts
- Sun et al.2021n=10 RCTsmixed
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 topic organized as you read it, so the review is an assembly job rather than a scramble.
What a topic review becomes
The artifact a cohort can actually check.
A review, in Titrate, is a record — four fields of your judgment plus a citation rail that cannot be empty. Which means a student can follow any claim in your lecture back to the paper it came from.
Research question
Does power training reduce fall risk in older adults more than strength training or general exercise?
Carried from the stack, so the review always answers a stated question.
Thesis
Your position. In your words.
Nothing drafts this. No chat window, no suggested wording, no "generate" button.
Body
The argument, claim by claim.
Including the distinction between a surrogate outcome and a measured one.
Take-home
What you would teach, and what you would flag as unsettled.
The field a student reads first — and quotes back to you.
Status
draft
It stays a draft until you say otherwise.
The citation rail — one entry per claim
Sherrington, C., Fairhall, N. J., Wallbank, G. K., et al. (2019). Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
108 RCTs · n > 23,000
Balance-and-functional exercise programmes clearly reduce fall rates — the largest and most authoritative synthesis on the question.
El Hadouchi, M., Kiers, H., de Vries, R., Veenhof, C., & van Dieën, J. (2022). Effectiveness of power training compared to strength training in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity.
15 trials · n = 583
Power training outperformed traditional strength training on muscle power and on activity-based tests emphasising movement speed.
Claudino, J. G., et al. (2021). Strength training to prevent falls in older adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
5 RCTs · n = 543
Comparable relative risk based on number of falls versus other exercise modalities; the authors note the evidence is scarce and heterogeneous.
Why this cannot rot
Each entry holds a link to the paper in your own library alongside the rendered reference and your note on why it is attached to that claim. The citation list is part of the record, not a separate file — so a module and the papers under it stay connected instead of both living in your memory. The software will not tell you the evidence behind a module has gone thin. It keeps the evidence attached where you will see it; noticing is the part that is yours, and it is the part worth modelling for a cohort.
The papers above are real and independently verified. The screen is not: Titrate is pre-launch and the opinion composer is designed, not built. This is the specification shown with real material, not a screenshot.
What your students will and will not be able to open
One question, on PubMed
Papers indexed on the question
269100%
Free to read somewhere
9736%
In the redistributable open-access subset
3613%
Worth knowing before you build a reading list on it. On the ACL return-to-sport question, PubMed indexes 269 papers: 97 free to read somewhere, 36 in the redistributable open-access subset (retrieved 2 August 2026). Off campus, or the year after they graduate, the remaining two-thirds is where your students hit a wall. Titrate keeps those as citation-only records rather than dropping them, so the reading list shows what the evidence base actually is and exactly where the access boundary falls — which is itself worth teaching, and is not in any syllabus template.
Where these numbers come fromWhy this matters here
You rebuild lecture material each term, and the papers behind it are scattered across a drive, a reference manager and an inbox. Meanwhile students cite whatever ranks first in a search, and you have no clean artifact to model good sourcing against.
Titrate is pre-launch.
Join the practitioner waitlistOne email when the first practitioner cohort opens. Nothing else.
