Lung float test
Open-knowledge reference entry
The lung float test, also called the hydrostatic test or docimasia, is a controversial autopsy procedure used in determining whether lungs have undergone respiration. It has historically been employed in cases of suspected infanticide to help determine whether or not an infant was stillborn. In the test, lungs that float in water are thought to have been aerated, while those that sink are presumed to indicate an absence of air.
The test is not infallible and many factors can cause the test to give false positive or negative results. Decomposition may result in postmortem gas formation, allowing a non-aerated lung to float. During labor, air can be introduced to a deceased infant's lungs while moving through the birth canal. Lungs exposed to air do not always float. Große Ostendorf et al. showed the procedure gave a false result in 2% of cases. In a 1997 paper, J.J. Moar emphasises the risk of misdiagnosing live birth, writing that the "majority of new born infants seen at autopsy show signs of varying degrees of decomposition, as they are often found in garbage, wrapped in newspaper or plastic bags, or lying in an open field.
The public source identifies “Lung float test” as open-knowledge reference entry. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Lung, float and test.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Lung float test”, the useful work is to connect “open-knowledge reference entry” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 3, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q6704291. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1997.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Lung float test”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Lung float test primary sources, Lung float test archive and Lung research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Lung float test”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Lung float test” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.