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: Including pharmacists in rounding teams does not alter the incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs).

Abstract:
CONTEXT Pharmacist review of medication orders in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been shown to prevent errors, and pharmacist consultation has reduced drug costs.
However, whether pharmacist participation in the ICU at the time of drug prescribing reduces adverse events has not been studied.
OBJECTIVE To measure the effect of pharmacist participation on medical rounds in the ICU on the rate of preventable adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by ordering errors.
DESIGN Before-after comparison between phase 1 (baseline) and phase 2 (after intervention implemented) and phase 2 comparison with a control unit that did not receive the intervention.
SETTING A medical ICU (study unit) and a coronary care unit (control unit) in a large urban teaching hospital.
PATIENTS Seventy-five patients randomly selected from each of 3 groups: all admissions to the study unit from February 1, 1993, through July 31, 1993 (baseline) and all admissions to the study unit (postintervention) and control unit from October 1, 1994, through July 7, 1995.
In addition, 50 patients were selected at random from the control unit during the baseline period.
INTERVENTION A senior pharmacist made rounds with the ICU team and remained in the ICU for consultation in the morning, and was available on call throughout the day.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Preventable ADEs due to ordering (prescribing) errors and the number, type, and acceptance of interventions made by the pharmacist.
Preventable ADEs were identified by review of medical records of the randomly selected patients during both preintervention and postintervention phases.
Pharmacists recorded all recommendations, which were then analyzed by type and acceptance.
RESULTS The rate of preventable ordering ADEs decreased by 66% from 10.4 per 1000 patient-days (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-14) before the intervention to 3.5 (95% CI, 1-5; P<.001) after the intervention.
In the control unit, the rate was essentially unchanged during the same time periods: 10.9 (95% CI, 6-16) and 12.4 (95% CI, 8-17) per 1000 patient-days.
The pharmacist made 366 recommendations related to drug ordering, of which 362 (99%) were accepted by physicians.
CONCLUSIONS The presence of a pharmacist on rounds as a full member of the patient care team in a medical ICU was associated with a substantially lower rate of ADEs caused by prescribing errors.
Nearly all the changes were readily accepted by physicians.
{"verdict": "CONTRADICT", "evidence": ["RESULTS The rate of preventable ordering ADEs decreased by 66% from 10.4 per 1000 patient-days (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-14) before the intervention to 3.5 (95% CI, 1-5; P<.001) after the intervention.", "CONCLUSIONS The presence of a pharmacist on rounds as a full member of the patient care team in a medical ICU was associated with a substantially lower rate of ADEs caused by prescribing errors."]}