Send the referrer a rationale, not a paragraph.
Referring physicians want reasoning they can read and check. Write it once, with each claim carrying its paper, and reuse it for the next patient with the same presentation.
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 — the considered, sourced answer — written once, reused every time the same question arrives.
Why this matters here
Ask a general AI tool about return-to-sport criteria and you get one confident paragraph. You cannot hand that to a referring physician, because you cannot show where it came from or what it left out. So you write the rationale again, from scratch, for the fourth time this month.
Titrate is pre-launch.
Join the practitioner waitlistOne email when the first practitioner cohort opens. Nothing else.
