Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42177265›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Measuring stereotype and deviation biases in large language models.

Daniel Wang, Eli Brignac, Minjia Mao, Xiao Fang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daniel Wang *Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, U.S.A.
Eli Brignac *University of Delaware, Newark, U.S.A.
Minjia MaoUniversity of Delaware, Newark, U.S.A.. mjmao@udel.edu.
Xiao FangUniversity of Delaware, Newark, U.S.A.. xfang@udel.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are widely applied across diverse domains, raising concerns about their limitations and potential risks. In this study, we investigate two types of bias that LLMs may display: stereotype bias and deviation bias. Stereotype bias refers to when LLMs consistently associate specific traits with a particular demographic group. Deviation bias reflects the disparity between the demographic distributions extracted from LLM-generated content and real-world demographic distributions. By asking four advanced LLMs to generate profiles of individuals, we examine the associations between each demographic group and attributes such as political affiliation, religion, and sexual orientation. Our experimental results show that all examined LLMs exhibit both significant stereotype bias and deviation bias towards multiple groups. Our findings uncover the biases that occur when LLMs infer user attributes and shed light on the potential harms of LLM-generated outputs.

Indexed as

Large Language ModelsStereotypingBiasHumansBias evaluationDeviation biasLarge language modelStereotype bias

Identifiers

PMID42177265
PMCPMC13424111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.