Your reference manager stores papers. It does not hold a position.
A review writes itself when the topic has been organized as you read. Titrate keeps what you concluded and why — and starts your public track record before you graduate.
Titrate is pre-launch. What is described here is what it is being built to do, with Jeff Casebolt, PhD.
The central question
Does the barbell hip thrust produce superior gluteus maximus development — measured either as acute EMG activation or as chronic hypertrophy — compared to the back squat?
- Contreras et al.2015n=13supports
- Delgado et al.2019n=8mixed
- Plotkin et al.2023n=34contradicts
- Krause Neto et al.2025n=12mixed
- Vigotsky et al.2017n=—contradicts
- Kassiano et al.2024n=33supports
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.
There is nowhere for what you actually concluded.
Your reference manager holds PDFs and metadata, and nothing else. The supporting and the contradicting findings collapse into one undifferentiated pile, and the reasoning that separated them lives in your head. Meanwhile you have no public track record at the career moment it matters most.
A real topic stack
Zero of seven. A summariser cannot return that.
A stack is a question with everything read against it assembled underneath. This one matters for how it comes out — and for what it says about the tools that would have answered it in a paragraph.
The central question
Does prescribing training load from real-time bar-velocity feedback produce better strength, power or speed adaptations than traditional percentage-of-1RM prescription?
| Paper | Year | Design | N | Bears on the question |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Banyard, Nosaka & Haff | 2017 | Reliability study | 17 | contradicts |
| Guerriero et al. | 2018 | Narrative review | — | mixed |
| Dorrell, Smith & Gee | 2020 | RCT (6-week intervention) | 16 | mixed |
| Liao et al. | 2021 | Systematic review / meta-analysis | 6 studies / 124 | contradicts |
| Włodarczyk et al. | 2021 | Systematic review | — | mixed |
| Orange et al. | 2022 | Systematic review / meta-analysis | 4 trials / 88 | contradicts |
| Hickmott et al. | 2022 | Systematic review / meta-analysis | 15 studies | mixed |
0 supporting · 3 contradicting · 4 mixed
The methodological problem underneath the method
The reliability study is the one to sit with. An athlete's actual 1RM reproduces across sessions almost perfectly — an intraclass correlation of 0.99. The bar velocity recorded at that same 1RM reproduces at 0.42, with a coefficient of variation of 22.5%. A method that predicts load from that number inherits its variance. That is not a null result about training; it is a measurement problem underneath one, and it is the kind of thing that shows up when you read seven papers rather than one review of them.
A stack like this is the seed of a review chapter, a conference abstract, or the first thing on the internet with your name on it — assembled while you were reading anyway, rather than reconstructed the week before a deadline.
Every paper listed here is real and independently re-verified on 2 August 2026 against PubMed, PMC, the DOI resolver, Unpaywall and an open citation-graph API. The screen is not. Titrate is pre-launch, and the topic-stack view is designed, not built — this is the specification, shown with real material rather than mocked up. Labelling how a paper bears on the question is a design commitment, not a shipped feature, and it is not what makes Titrate different.
What Titrate does about it
Organize a topic as you read it, not the week before the deadline — starting from your own library, or from a topic search you then prune yourself. Write your position with citations attached as you go. The review becomes an assembly job, and what you publish carries your name from the start.
What a Titrate workspace holdsMixed evidence stays mixed.
Supporting and contradicting work is kept where you can see both. Titrate is being built so a position never quietly resolves a disagreement the literature has not resolved.
How evidence is handledTitrate is being built with Jeff Casebolt, PhD — a biomechanist with five peer-reviewed publications, who has been through peer review himself.
About Jeff and why this existsQuestions
Is that stack included, or do I have to build my own?
You build your own. The stack above is a specimen — assembled from published literature to show the shape of the thing, not shipped as content you subscribe to. Titrate can help you find candidates on a topic; what it will not do is curate a reading list or tell you which papers matter. It proposes, you dispose. If it decided for you, you would be reading someone else's review again, which is the exact position this is meant to get you out of.
Is this a reference manager replacement?
No — it sits after one. Keep storing PDFs wherever you already do. Titrate is for the topic, the position, and the citation trail behind it.
Can I publish from it before I have a full paper?
That is a large part of the point: a defensible, cited position is publishable long before a manuscript is.
Titrate is pre-launch.
Join the practitioner waitlistOne email when the first practitioner cohort opens. Nothing else.
