Opening application…
A review is painful because the organizing happens at the end. Do it as you go, with your position recorded alongside each paper, and the writing becomes assembly.
Titrate is pre-launch. What is described here is what it is being built to do, with Jeff Casebolt, PhD (ABD).
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?
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.
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
A review, in Titrate, is a record — four fields of your judgment plus a citation rail that cannot be empty. It is the smallest unit of a track record you own.
Research question
Does velocity-based load prescription outperform percentage-of-1RM prescription?
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 reliability problem sitting underneath the method.
Take-home
What you would conclude, and what you would still test.
The field that survives into a thesis chapter or a conference abstract.
Status
draft
It stays a draft until you say otherwise.
The citation rail — one entry per claim
Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K., & Haff, G. G. (2017). Reliability and validity of the load-velocity relationship to predict the 1RM back squat. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001657 · PMID 27669192
Actual 1RM was highly stable across three trials (ICC = 0.99), but velocity at 1RM was not (ICC = 0.42, CV = 22.5%).
Liao, K. F., Wang, X. X., Han, M. Y., Li, L. L., Nassis, G. P., & Li, Y. M. (2021). Effects of velocity based training vs. traditional 1RM percentage-based training. PLOS ONE.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0259790 · PMID 34793506
The differences of training effects between VBT and PBT were not significant in back squat 1RM, jump, linear sprint, or change-of-direction speed.
Orange, S. T., Hritz, A., Pearson, L., Jeffries, O., Jones, T. W., & Steele, J. (2022). Comparison of the effects of velocity-based vs. traditional resistance training methods. Journal of Sports Sciences.
doi:10.1080/02640414.2022.2059320 · PMID 35380511
A trivial standardised mean difference between VBT and comparison groups, with an imprecise interval estimate.
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 you keep in step — so three years of these is a body of work with your name on it, assembled while you were reading anyway, each piece still carrying its sources. What it does not do is vouch for the sourcing. It guarantees the trail is attached to the piece and stays attached; standing behind it is yours.
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.
One question, on PubMed
Papers indexed on the question
269100%
Free to read somewhere
9736%
In the redistributable open-access subset
3613%
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. Roughly two-thirds is citation-only, which runs below the PMC-wide open-access rate because sports-medicine journals are heavily paywalled. Three of Jeff Casebolt's own five publications sit in that fraction. Titrate will not hand you a PDF it cannot legally hand you; it keeps the citation, the DOI and an honest record of what you actually read — which is what a methods section has to survive.
Where these numbers come fromYour 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.
One email when the first practitioner cohort opens. Nothing else.