Review the topic the way you would have to defend it.
Return-to-sport criteria, load progression, imaging thresholds — organize everything you have read on one question so your position holds up when it is challenged.
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 topic organized as you read it, so the review is an assembly job rather than a scramble.
What a topic review becomes
The record a referrer can follow back.
A review, in Titrate, is not a document you write from scratch each time. It is a record with four fields of your judgment and a citation rail that cannot be empty.
Research question
Does passing objective return-to-sport criteria reduce the risk of a second ACL injury?
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.
Each claim can carry the paper it came from — including the ones that cut against you.
Take-home
What you would actually do at clearance, and why.
This is the line the referring physician reads first.
Status
draft
It stays a draft until you say otherwise.
The citation rail — one entry per claim
Grindem, H., Snyder-Mackler, L., Moksnes, H., Engebretsen, L., & Risberg, M. A. (2016). Simple decision rules can reduce reinjury risk by 84% after ACL reconstruction. British Journal of Sports Medicine.
Prospective cohort · n = 106
Meeting return-to-sport criteria was associated with a large reduction in reinjury risk in this cohort.
Losciale, J. M., Zdeb, R. M., Ledbetter, L., Reiman, M. P., & Sell, T. C. (2019). The association between passing return-to-sport criteria and second anterior cruciate ligament injury risk. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.
Systematic review / meta-analysis · 4 studies
Passing return-to-sport criteria carried only a nonsignificant 3% reduced risk of a second ACL injury.
Zhou, et al. (2024). Association between passing return-to-sport testing and subsequent knee injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
9 studies · n = 1,410
Passing return-to-sport testing was not associated with subsequent knee injury or secondary ACL injury, but was associated with lower graft-rupture risk specifically.
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 rather than a separate file you keep in step — so six weeks later, when the same question arrives from a different referrer, you are editing a record that still has its sources on it instead of rebuilding a rationale. What the software will not do is judge that you have cited enough. It guarantees the trail has somewhere to live and stays attached to the position; whether it is complete is your call, which is the only place that call belongs.
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.
How much of this topic you can actually hold
One question, on PubMed
Papers indexed on the question
269100%
Free to read somewhere
9736%
In the redistributable open-access subset
3613%
This is the example topic, so here are its real numbers. PubMed indexes 269 papers on return to sport after ACL reconstruction; 97 are free to read somewhere and 36 sit in the redistributable open-access subset — retrieved 2 August 2026, and you can re-run it in a minute. Which means roughly two-thirds of the evidence on the question you are being asked to sign off on can only ever reach you as a citation. Titrate cannot get you past a paywall and will not imply otherwise. What it does is hold a citation-only record with what you could read and the fields you could not retrieve marked unknown — because a review that admits which papers you only saw the abstract of is more defensible than one that quietly does not.
Where these numbers come fromWhy 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.
