https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8819838/ that still seems to find it may be more the human influence on a breed(or mixed breed dog as it were) than manifested in the breed itself.

An important finding was Pit Bull-type dogs in our community sample, as a group, were not more aggressive or likely to have a behavioral diagnosis than other dogs. As the nascent field of canine behavior advances, it will be important to better account for human influences on dog behavior. Our results showed genetic screening of canine behavior is feasible and suggest it may be useful for owners, breeders, shelters, working dog institutions and veterinarians.

If you were to compare the findings of the direct connection of anxiety, many smaller dogs have this but we as large humans tend to dismiss this in smaller dogs. The only reason we really focus into the pit bull is the association we’ve developed and the size. Also larger dogs are usually trained in defence. Less so with smaller dogs which also suffer with anxiety. No doubt a lot of owners get the ideal that they want to get a pit bull to install fear into other humans as a form of protection. this is a human introduction of a behavior.

Anecdotally my family owned many dogs. Sometimes we’d get a litter where two dogs behaved very differently to each other. We inherited many dogs with behavioural problems because of human error and the breed didn't make a difference so much as size definitely did amongst the decisions many people made. No one wants to keep a large dog with behavioural issues. Why people associate it with pit bulls is mainly because statistically they are more prone to treat that particular breed (and in many cases any breed that looks associated to the pit bull) in such a way that installs more anxiety. That is a human error. Not a breed error.

Are those statistics weighted against breed prevalence? Because if not, those data aren’t really telling us anything significant. If pit bulls as a breed are overrepresented statistically, that would be a significant finding. Looking at the source material for the claim here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165587618305950 doesn’t clearly state if the numbers are per capita of dog breed or if they’re just sheer numbers of attacks, regardless of prevalence of breed. Do you have a source that evaluates the statistics in such a manner?

Couple of issues with this data. 1- People are much more likely to report bites from larger dogs (since they cause injury that requires medical treatment and reporting is done automatically) 2- Any stats by design are going to be correlational evidence and do not guarantee causality so it's not at all clear that rate of bites by pits are higher or just more frequently reported because they are pits or because they are so common . 3- As others have pointed out pits are more likely to be found in lower SES homes where resources for training, toys and healthy outlets for dog energy like time for long, regular walks and playtime is less readily accessible. 4-Breeds most associated with aggression are most likely to be treated by humans in ways that incite dogs' anxiety, which is a precursor to aggressive behavior.

I think that pitties are just the victim of really bad press. Once it became common knowledge that they were used in dog fighting, it became part of what everyone "knows" about pits. It creates a self fulfilling prophecy by seeing only results they expect rather than thinking about why they expected to see it in the first place.