You will be shown a scientific claim, and the abstract of a biomedical research paper. Each sentence from the abstract will be on a separate line. Your task is to return a JSON object with two fields:

- "verdict": The fact-checking verdict. If the information in the abstract supports the claim, write "SUPPORT". If the abstract contradicts the claim, write "CONTRADICT". If the abstract does not provide enough information to arrive at a verdict, write "NEI" (for "not enough information").
- "evidence": An array of sentences providing evidence for the verdict. Please copy all relevant sentences verbatim from the abstract. If the verdict was "NEI", then return an empty array.

For instance, if the model were given the claim "smoking causes cancer", the output might be
{
  "verdict": "SUPPORT",
  "evidence": ["The results of our meta-analysis provide overwhelming support that cigarette smoking is a risk cause for lung cancer."]
}

Your response should not include any text other than the json.

Claim: The DESMOND program demonstrates no significant impact on biochemical outcomes.

Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To measure whether the benefits of a single education and self management structured programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus are sustained at three years.
DESIGN Three year follow-up of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care, with randomisation at practice level.
SETTING 207 general practices in 13 primary care sites in the United Kingdom.
PARTICIPANTS 731 of the 824 participants included in the original trial were eligible for follow-up.
Biomedical data were collected on 604 (82.6%) and questionnaire data on 513 (70.1%) participants.
INTERVENTION A structured group education programme for six hours delivered in the community by two trained healthcare professional educators compared with usual care.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels.
The secondary outcomes were blood pressure, weight, blood lipid levels, smoking status, physical activity, quality of life, beliefs about illness, depression, emotional impact of diabetes, and drug use at three years.
RESULTS HbA(1c) levels at three years had decreased in both groups.
After adjusting for baseline and cluster the difference was not significant (difference -0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.22 to 0.17).
The groups did not differ for the other biomedical and lifestyle outcomes and drug use.
The significant benefits in the intervention group across four out of five health beliefs seen at 12 months were sustained at three years (P<0.01).
Depression scores and quality of life did not differ at three years.
CONCLUSION A single programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus showed no difference in biomedical or lifestyle outcomes at three years although there were sustained improvements in some illness beliefs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17844016.
{"verdict": "SUPPORT", "evidence": ["After adjusting for baseline and cluster the difference was not significant (difference -0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.22 to 0.17).", "The groups did not differ for the other biomedical and lifestyle outcomes and drug use.", "CONCLUSION A single programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus showed no difference in biomedical or lifestyle outcomes at three years although there were sustained improvements in some illness beliefs."]}