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: Risk of cardiovascular events can be cut by a third by using antihypertensive drug therapy among hemodialysis patients.

Abstract:
Epidemiological studies demonstrate that a lower blood pressure and decline in blood pressure over months or years are associated with higher mortality in dialysis patients.
In contrast, randomized, controlled trials lack power to establish benefits of antihypertensive therapy.
Patients on long-term dialysis participating in randomized, controlled trials and receiving antihypertensive drug therapy were the subject of this meta-analysis.
Outcomes assessed were the hazard ratio of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in treated group compared with controls.
Among 1202 patients who we identified in 5 studies, the overall benefit of antihypertensive therapy compared with the control or placebo group had a combined hazard ratio for cardiovascular events of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.56 to 0.84) using a fixed-effects model and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.86) using a random-effects model.
In a sensitivity analysis, we found that the hypertensive group had a pooled hazard ratio of 0.49 (95% CI: 0.35 to 0.67), but when normotensives were included in the trial, lesser cardiovascular protection was seen (pooled hazard ratio of 0.86 [95% CI: 0.67 to 1.12]).
Test for heterogeneity between hypertensive and "normotensive-included" groups was significant (P<0.006).
Similar results were seen for risk ratio for death and cardiovascular events.
There was evidence of publication bias based on Egger's test and funnel plot.
Randomized trials suggested a benefit of antihypertensive therapy among hemodialysis patients.
Adequately powered randomized trials are required to confirm these observations, especially among those with hypertension.
{"verdict": "SUPPORT", "evidence": ["Among 1202 patients who we identified in 5 studies, the overall benefit of antihypertensive therapy compared with the control or placebo group had a combined hazard ratio for cardiovascular events of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.56 to 0.84) using a fixed-effects model and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.86) using a random-effects model."]}