Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40830641›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Performance evaluation of GPT-4o on South Korean national exams for building mechanical equipment maintenance.

Haneul Choi, Jehyun Lee, Jonghun Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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

3 authors.

Haneul ChoiEnergy ICT Research Department, Korea Institute of Energy Research, Daejeon, 34129, South Korea. chn7960@kier.re.kr.
Jehyun LeeEnergy AI & Computational Science Laboratory, Korea Institute of Energy Research, Daejeon, 34129, South Korea.
Jonghun KimEnergy ICT Research Department, Korea Institute of Energy Research, Daejeon, 34129, South Korea.

Funding

Korea Institute of Energy Research C5-2424
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluates the applicability of large language models (LLMs) in mechanical equipment maintenance in buildings by assessing GPT-4o's performance on two national certification exams in South Korea: Engineer Energy Management (EEM) and Engineer Air-Conditioning Refrigerating Machinery (EACRM). GPT-4o achieved average scores of 80.6 and 81.25 on the EEM and EACRM exams, respectively, passing all five attempts. The model performed well on both non-calculation and calculation problems and demonstrated high consistency, with an average response consistency of 97%. Despite these strengths, three key limitations were identified: weak advanced reasoning, difficulty in solving legal questions, and poor interpretation of scientific figures. Experimental results indicate that advanced reasoning can be improved using reasoning-optimized models, while legal question accuracy can be significantly enhanced with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). However, figure interpretation remains dependent on advancements in visual recognition capabilities. These findings suggest that GPT-4o possesses foundational knowledge applicable to mechanical equipment maintenance in buildings but also highlight the need to address certain limitations for practical implementation. This study provides a foundation for future research on integrating LLMs into industrial applications, such as maintenance management software, to enhance maintenance efficiency and address workforce shortages.

Indexed as

Building operatorEngineer air-conditioning refrigerating machineryEngineer energy managementGPTLarge language modelMechanical equipment maintenance manager

Identifiers

PMID40830641
PMCPMC12365024

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.