aiqbench analysis
This research critically examines how large language models like GPT-4 and GPT-5 misalign with real-world human data regarding mental health stigma across gender lines. While the AI correctly identified ordinal patterns, it systematically distorted specific stigma metrics, underscoring the necessity of rigorous validation against empirical datasets before deploying such systems in sensitive healthcare contexts.
AI Representations of Mental Health Stigma: Quantifying the Gap Between AI Estimations and Human Perceptions Across Gender Groups Using GPT-Based LLMs
arXiv:2610.16042v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in mental health applications raises concerns about its potential to internalize and perpetuate societal biases. This research evaluates both disparities and misalignment in how large language models (LLMs), GPT-4 and GPT-5, represent perceptions of mental health across gender groups. The research comprises two studies. Study 1 applied widely adopted measures of Social Distance, Stereotypes, and Attitudes Toward Seeking Help to assess whether the AI models depict systematic gender differences. Study 2 compared AI estimations of Personal, Self, and Perceived Stigma with large-scale real-world human data from the Healthy Minds Study (N = 76,406) to evaluate alignment between AI estimations and human perceptions. Results from Study 1 showed the AI models consistently portrayed men as having the greatest desire for social distance from someone with mental health problems, relatively higher Stereotypes scores, and the least favorable attitudes toward help-seeking, compared with women and nonbinary individuals. Study 2 confirmed that this ordinal pattern partially aligned with human-reported data for Personal and Self Stigma. However, the AI models systematically underestimated Personal Stigma and Perceived Stigma while substantially overestimating Self Stigma for all gender groups. These findings reveal that, although the AI models have learned relative gender-based patterns reflecting human experiences to a certain extent, they function as distorted portrayals, highlighting the need for rigorous, context-specific validation against real-world data to ensure AI's safe and equitable deployment.
Abstract:The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in mental health applications raises concerns about its potential to internalize and perpetuate societal biases. This research evaluates both disparities and misalignment in how large language models (LLMs), GPT-4 and GPT-5, represent perceptions of mental health across gender groups. The research comprises two studies. Study 1 applied widely adopted measures of Social Distance, Stereotypes, and Attitudes Toward Seeking Help to assess whether the AI models depict systematic gender differences. Study 2 compared AI estimations of Personal, Self, and Perceived Stigma with large-scale real-world human data from the Healthy Minds Study (N = 76,406) to evaluate alignment between AI estimations and human perceptions. Results from Study 1 showed the AI models consistently portrayed men as having the greatest desire for social distance from someone with mental health problems, relatively higher Stereotypes scores, and the least favorable attitudes toward help-seeking, compared with women and nonbinary individuals. Study 2 confirmed that this ordinal pattern partially aligned with human-reported data for Personal and Self Stigma. However, the AI models systematically underestimated Personal Stigma and Perceived Stigma while substantially overestimating Self Stigma for all gender groups. These findings reveal that, although the AI models have learned relative gender-based patterns reflecting human experiences to a certain extent, they function as distorted portrayals, highlighting the need for rigorous, context-specific validation against real-world data to ensure AI's safe and equitable deployment.
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.16042 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2610.16042v1 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.16042 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119855 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 338 words
Related coverage

SensorFM: Towards a general intelligence and interface for wearable health data
Google Research · Jul 9, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
Amazon is investing in the Lean Focused Research Organization
Amazon Science · Jul 26, 2026

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 17, 2026