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: Asymptomatic visual impairment screening in elderly populations leads to improved vision.

Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To assess whether population screening for impaired vision among older people in the community leads to improvements in vision.
DESIGN Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of population screening in the community that included any assessment of vision or visual function with at least 6 months' follow up.
SUBJECTS Adults aged 65 or over.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Proportions with visual impairment in intervention and control groups with any method of assessing visual impairment.
RESULTS There were no trials that primarily assessed visual screening.
Outcome data on vision were available for 3494 people in five trials of multiphasic assessment.
All the trials used self reported measures for vision impairment, both as screening tools and as outcome measures.
The inclusion of a visual screening component in the assessment did not result in improvements in self reported visual problems (pooled odds ratio 1.04:95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.22).
A small reduction (11%) in the number of older people with self reported visual problems cannot be excluded.
CONCLUSIONS Screening of asymptomatic older people in the community is not justified on present evidence.
Visual impairment in this age group can usually be reduced with treatment.
It is unclear why no benefit was seen.
Further work is needed to clarify what interventions are appropriate for older people with unreported impairment of vision.
{"verdict": "CONTRADICT", "evidence": ["The inclusion of a visual screening component in the assessment did not result in improvements in self reported visual problems (pooled odds ratio 1.04:95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.22).", "CONCLUSIONS Screening of asymptomatic older people in the community is not justified on present evidence."]}