Purpose With accelerating advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and digital transformation, the construction domain is rapidly adopting large language models (LLMs) to improve efficiency, safety and sustainability. However, a comprehensive understanding of their applications, adaptation strategies and evaluation practices in this domain remains limited. This paper provides a systematic landscape of LLM research and applications in construction, clarifying their roles, integration pathways and associated challenges. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline, combining bibliometric and content analysis of publications from 2020 to 2025. The review examines the evolution, implementation strategies and performance characteristics of LLMs in construction domains. Findings LLMs have been increasingly implemented across diverse construction tasks. Most studies utilize pretrained models, adapted through fine-tuning, retrieval-augmented generation or prompt engineering. While LLMs demonstrate strong reasoning and semantic understanding capabilities, challenges persist in domain adaptation, hallucination control, data privacy and lifecycle integration. Practical implications The results provide insights for researchers and practitioners on how LLMs can be effectively implemented throughout the construction domain. The paper highlights the need for developing domain-specific evaluation standards, establishing governance frameworks and aligning LLM applications with existing digital ecosystems such as building information modeling and digital twins. Originality/value This paper presents a comprehensive systematic review focused on LLM applications in construction. By mapping the technological landscape and summarizing key implementation strategies, it establishes a theoretical and practical foundation for advancing intelligent, data-driven and human-centered construction in the era of generative AI.
Gao et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: